Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Hubbell

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedJanuary 17, 2020
Docket1:19-cv-06547
StatusUnknown

This text of Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Hubbell (Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Hubbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Hubbell, (N.D. Ill. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:19-CV-6547 ) ELLEN HUBBELL, JORDYN ) Judge Robert W. Gettleman TSOUKALAS, IRA COHEN AS ) Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes GUARDIAN AD LITEM on behalf of A.T., ) a minor, and ATHENA GORDAN, ) ) Defendants. )

GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER IN INTERPLEADER AND PETITION FOR FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiff Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“Genworth”), by its attorneys, Julie F. Wall and Kaitlyn E. Luther of Chittenden, Murday & Novotny LLC, states as follows for its Motion for Final Judgment Order in Interpleader and Petition for Fees and Costs: 1. On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Interpleader under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 to resolve competing claims to the proceeds of the Genworth life insurance policy, designated Policy No. 9,353,018 (the “Policy”), issued by Genworth to Christ Tsoukalas, on the life of Christ Tsoukalas, in the amount of $300,000.00. (ECF Doc. No. 1). 2. On October 11, 2019, the Court granted Genworth’s motion to deposit its admitted liability under the Policy with the Court. (Doc. No. 17). 3. On October 16, 2019, Genworth deposited its admitted liability under the Policy in the amount of $306,593.59, representing the death benefit under the Policy plus accrued interest, into the Registry of this Court, subject to this Court’s further order as to whom among the Defendants is entitled to receive those proceeds. See Receipt of $306,593.59, Receipt No. 4624231872, dated October 16, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 4. On October 7, 2019, Genworth filed Athena Gordan’s Waiver of the Service of Summons and her attorney filed an appearance on her behalf. (ECF Doc. Nos. 8, 9). Counsel for Athena Gordan subsequently informed counsel for Genworth that Athena Gordan denies that she

has an actual or potential claim to the Policy’s proceeds and disclaims all interest in the Policy’s proceeds. See Declaration of Athena Gordan dated December 4, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Athena Gordan has not filed and, per her counsel, does not intend to file a responsive pleading to Genworth’s Complaint for Interpleader or otherwise participate in this litigation. 5. As Genworth alleged in its Complaint, it communicated with Ellen Hubbell and Ira Cohen, an attorney claiming to be the guardian for A.T., regarding the proceeds of the Policy before filing its Complaint. (ECF Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 16-19). Thus, Genworth named Ira Cohen as A.T.’s guardian in its Complaint. 6. On October 8, 2019, counsel for Genworth spoke with attorney Kevin McCormick

who informed counsel for Genworth that Ira Cohen was not the guardian for A.T., but rather Ellen Hubbell would serve as A.T.’s guardian in this litigation. Mr. McCormick further informed counsel for Genworth that a separate attorney, Jay Andrew, would represent Ellen Hubbell, individually, in the litigation as a claimant to the Policy proceeds. 7. On October 10, 2019, attorney Kevin McCormick filed Waivers of the Service of Summons and appearances on behalf of Jordyn Tsoukalas and Ellen Hubbell, as Guardian for A.T. (ECF Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 13). 8. On October 10, 2019, attorney Jay Andrew filed a Waiver of the Service of Summons and an appearance on behalf of Ellen Hubbell. (ECF Doc. Nos. 14, 15). 9. In mid-December 2019, counsel for Genworth had multiple telephone calls with counsels for Ellen Hubbell, Jordyn Tsoukalas, Ellen Hubbell as Guardian for A.T., and Athena Gordan to ascertain whether they intended to file responsive pleadings, which had been due for all parties on December 2, 2019, disclaim interest in the Policy, or be defaulted from the litigation. 10. On December 20, 2019, Defendants Jordyn Tsoukalas and Ellen Hubbell, as

Guardian for A.T., filed their Answer to Complaint for Interpleader. (ECF Doc. No. 18). 11. On December 24, 2019, Defendant Ellen Hubbell filed her Answer to Complaint for Interpleader. (ECF Doc. No. 20). 12. Ira Cohen, named as a Defendant solely as Guardian ad Litem on behalf of A.T., did not submit a waiver of the Service of Summons and has not appeared or filed a responsive pleading in this litigation. Instead, Ellen Hubbell has appeared in the capacity of A.T.’s guardian in this litigation. 13. Athena Gordan has disclaimed any interest in the Policy’s proceeds. 14. Defendants Ellen Hubbell, Jordyn Tsoukalas, and Ellen Hubbell as Guardian for

A.T. are the remaining adverse claimants to the Policy’s proceeds. 15. An award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate in an interpleader action “because the stakeholder is the target of a dispute which is not of his own making, and because he ‘is often viewed as having performed a service to the claimants by initiating a proceeding which will expeditiously resolve their claims and by safeguarding the disputed fund by deposit in court . . . .’” Law Offices of Birndorf v. Joffe, No. 89 C 6484, 1990 WL 103234, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 1990) (quoting United Bank of Denver v. Oxford Properties, Inc., 683 F. Supp. 755, 757 (D. Colo. 1988)). 16. “[A] court may award attorneys’ fees and costs to a prevailing stakeholder in an interpleader action if the costs are determined to be reasonable and the stakeholder’s efforts are not part of its normal course of business.” Aaron v. Mahl, 550 F.3d 659, 667 (7th Cir. 2008) (awarding fees to stakeholder in complex case with extensive discovery and motion practice); see also N. Tr. Co. v. Meineke, No. 90 C 938, 1991 WL 65929, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 22, 1991)

(awarding fees to insurer in case in which defendant made case more costly); Law Offices of Birndorf, 1990 WL 103234, at *3 (finding that plaintiff’s rates were reasonable, all the work related to plaintiff’s “effort to sort out the competing claims to the funds at issue,” and awarding attorneys’ fees for all hours plaintiff worked, including work performed before the initiation of litigation). 17. In Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. Warpness, the court awarded fees to the insurer, in part, because the insured was careless and failed to clarify beneficiary designations after his divorce and entered into a vague and indefinite divorce settlement. No. 16-C-1321, 2017 WL 2790235, at *3 (E.D. Wis. June 27, 2017). “Awarding the insured fees and expenses out of the

policy proceeds in such cases not only places the loss on the party responsible for the confusion (or more accurately those standing in the shoes of the person responsible), but it also incentivizes insureds to make their beneficiary designations clear and update them when significant changes in their lives call them into question. Such a rule also incentivizes the insurer to inquire into the legitimacy of the potential claims, protect the integrity of the fund, and act in a timely fashion.” Id. 18. Genworth is a disinterested stakeholder in this action that incurred reasonable fees and costs performing work outside its normal course of business. Genworth does not dispute that Christ Tsoukalas, the insured, is deceased or that the proceeds of the Policy are payable. Genworth, however, was forced to file this action due to the Defendants’ competing claims to the Policy proceeds. Genworth would likely not have had to file this action if the insured had entered into an unambiguous divorce decree and clarified his beneficiary designations after his divorce. 19. An award of taxable costs and expenses to the prevailing party is permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), including filing fees, copy fees, and delivery and service fees. Fed. R.

Civ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Aaron v. Mahl
550 F.3d 659 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Hubbell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genworth-life-and-annuity-insurance-company-v-hubbell-ilnd-2020.