Securian Life Insurance Company v. Saxena
This text of Securian Life Insurance Company v. Saxena (Securian Life Insurance Company v. Saxena) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 THE HONORABLE TANA LIN 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 SECURIAN LIFE INSURANCE Case No. 2:24-cv-00012-TL COMPANY, 10 STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF Plaintiff, DISCHARGE IN INTERPLEADER 11 v. [Local Court Rules7(d)] 12 SONAM SAXENA, an individual; THE 13 ESTATE OF SMRITI SAXENA, by and through its Personal Representative Sonam 14 Saxena; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Upon review and approval of the Stipulated Motion for Entry of Judgment of Discharge in 18 Interpleader, it appearing that this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter set 19 forth in Plaintiff Securian Life Insurance Company’s Complaint in Interpleader filed in this action, 20 and for good cause appearing therefor, 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 22 Securian issued group term life insurance policy number 70412 (the “Policy”) to 23 Google LLC providing a Dependents Term Life Insurance Certificate Supplement (“Supplement”) 24 to eligible employees’ dependents, including Sonam Saxena’s spouse Smriti Saxena (herein the 25 “Decedent”). The Policy (and Supplement) is a part of Google LLC’s employee welfare benefit 26 plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Under the 27 ERISA plan, The Supplement provided that Securian will pay the Death Benefit to “you [(Sonam 28 1 person as secondary beneficiary. The Death Benefit under the Policy payable by reason of the 2 Decedent’s death, and subject to this interpleader action, is $750,000.00. 3 Prior to, and until, February 18, 2020, Sonam Saxena was the eligible employee 4 under the ERISA plan and was the designated beneficiary pursuant to the terms of the Supplement. 5 Decedent passed away on February 18, 2020. 6 Shortly after Decedent’s death, Securian received notice of Decedent’s death and 7 opened a claim for the Death Benefit under the Supplement. 8 Securian received a copy of the Decedent’s death certificate which listed the cause 9 of death as homicidal violence of undetermined etiology. 10 With respect to the Death Benefit owed under the Supplement, Securian Life has 11 received and/or is otherwise on notice of competing and adverse claims to the Death Benefit. Thus, 12 Securian Life is unable to pay the Death Benefit without being exposed to the risk of double or 13 multiple liability and/or contravening Google’s ERISA governed employee welfare benefits plan. 14 On January 3, 2024, Securian Life filed a Complaint in Interpleader in this Court. 15 This case is at issue because defendants have appeared. See, Answers to Complaint 16 at Dkt. Nos. 14 and 15. 17 Upon the Court’s approval of a concurrently filed stipulated motion to deposit 18 interpleader funds, Securian Life will deposit $750,000 (the Death Benefit), less $23,111.60 19 (Securian Life’s fees and costs), plus applicable interest into the Court’s Registry. 20 Securian Life is a disinterested stakeholder and is indifferent to which defendant or 21 defendants are entitled to the death benefits payable under the Policy. 22 Securian Life is a citizen of the state of Minnesota, and all defendants are citizens of 23 the State of Washington. 24 The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000 because the Death Benefit 25 totals $750,000. 26 This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 22 because Securian Life is diverse in citizenship from each and 28 ev ery defendant and the amount in controversy ex ceeds $75,000. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 22 permits interpleader action if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and if there is 2 complete diversity between the stakeholder and all of the claimants, even if some of the claimants 3 are citizens of the same state.” Prudential Ins. Co. v. Wells, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43276, p.2 4 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2009); see also, Gelfren v. Republic Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 680 F.2d 79, 81, fn1 5 (9th Cir. 1982). 6 This Court also has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because 7 the Policy is part of an employee welfare benefit plan which is governed by ERISA. 8 Securian Life has properly filed the Complaint in Interpleader and stated a proper 9 cause for interpleader. 10 That having brought this action and upon depositing with the Court the Death 11 Benefit, plus accrued interest, and minus Securian Life’s fees and costs, Securian Life, its 12 predecessors, successors, affiliates, parent corporations, employees, officers and agents are fully 13 and forever released, discharged and acquitted of any liability of any kind or nature whatsoever 14 with respect to the terms of the Policy and/or Plan, the death benefits payable under the Policy 15 and/or Plan, and/or the death of Decedent as to all claims, charges, demands, or otherwise that 16 exist now or may arise at any time in the future. 17 That defendants are permanently enjoined from instituting or prosecuting any 18 proceeding in any state or United States court against Securian Life, its predecessors, successors, 19 affiliates, parent corporations, employees, officers and agents with respect to the terms of the 20 Policy and/or Plan, the death benefits payable under the Policy and/or Plan, and/or the death of 21 Decedent as to all claims, charges, demands, or otherwise that exist now or may arise at any time 22 in the future. 23 Securian Life is dismissed with prejudice from this action. 24 This action shall proceed between the defendants. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 That except for the prior stipulation and Order awarding fees and costs to Securian 2 Life in the amount of $23,111.60, all parties are to bear their own fees and costs with respect to 3 the order and judgment for discharge in interpleader and dismissal with prejudice as to Securian 4 Life. 5 Dated: April 22, 2024 Hon. Tana Lin 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Securian Life Insurance Company v. Saxena, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securian-life-insurance-company-v-saxena-wawd-2024.