Garden State Life Ins. Co. v. Raine
| Decision Date | 25 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-103-KS-JCG |
| Parties | GARDEN STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF v. THE ESTATE OF JAMES R. RAINE, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Emma Raine's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [43]. Defendant, the Estate of James R. Raine (the "Estate"), has filed its response and memorandum in support [46, 47], and Emma Raine has filed a reply [48]. Having reviewed the pleadings, the parties' submissions, the record in this matter, and the applicable law, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is well taken and will be granted.
This case involves the determination of the proper party to receive the proceeds of a life insurance policy following the death of James R. Raine, who was the victim of a homicide on October 21, 2011.1 Mr. Raine was shot to death in his home in Poplarville, Mississippi, having been shot multiple times in the forehead, chin, head and neck. [27] at ¶¶ 25, 31; [29] at ¶¶ 25, 31; [32] at ¶¶ 25, 26. Almost six years later, on July 6, 2017, Plaintiff, Garden State Life InsuranceCompany ("Garden State"), filed a Complaint for Interpleader and for Declaratory Judgment [1], which was later amended [27]. The basis of the interpleader action was Garden State's assertion that there are competing claims for the life insurance proceeds. [27 at ¶ 7].
Both Emma Raine and the Estate of James R. Raine have answered the Amended Complaint [29, 32]. The United States also became a party to the action by filing an unopposed motion to intervene, which was granted, and a cross-claim against Emma Raine, seeking to recover fines and restitution pursuant to a criminal conviction for bankruptcy fraud and tax fraud in the amount of $94,107.01 should Emma Raine be entitled to the proceeds of the insurance policy [17, 21]. Emma Raine concedes liability to the IRS should she prevail on summary judgment. [43 at p. 1]. Emma Raine is currently incarcerated in the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women in St. Gabriel, Louisiana, having been convicted of second degree murder in the death of her second husband, Ernest Smith, in August 2016. [4] #1; [5] #3; [27], Ex. M.
Discovery closed on July 2, 2018, and Emma Raine has now filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the claim in the interpleader action concerning which Defendant is entitled to the proceeds of the Policy.
Garden State issued Policy No. 00411074 to, and covering the life of, James R. Raine, the Decedent, as the Owner and the Insured, on August 11, 2010, with the policy being in full force and effect on the date of James R. Raine's death (the "Policy"). [27] at ¶ 24; [29] at ¶ 24; [32] at ¶ 24. There is no dispute that Emma Raine is listed as the beneficiary on the Policy. [27] at ¶ 28; [29] at ¶ 28; [32] at ¶26. Emma Raine made a claim for the proceeds of the insurance on December 6, 2011. [27] at ¶ 30; [29] at ¶ 30; [32] at ¶26. Garden State thereafter began an investigation and review. Id.
The dispute as to entitlement to the proceeds arose due to allegations set forth in the April 2, 2013 Petition to Open Intestate Estate filed in the Chancery Court of Pearl River County, Mississippi, wherein the Petitioners alleged that at the time of his death, James R. Raine was married to Emma Raine; they had no children together, but James R. Raine had one child. [27] at ¶ 49, Ex. U at ¶ III; [29] at ¶ 49; [32] at ¶ 31. The Petitioners further alleged that Emma Raine is a suspect in the shooting death of James R. Raine and that she brought about his death. [27 at ¶¶ 7, 50], Ex. U at ¶ VI. Finally, the Petitioners stated they had reason to believe that there may be life insurance policies applicable to the decedent and that they intended to file a claim on behalf of the Estate. [27] at ¶ 51, Ex. U at ¶ VII; [29] at ¶ 51; [32] at ¶ 31.2
By interpleading the funds, Garden State sought "to avoid unilaterally paying proceeds to any person or any entity not clearly entitled to said proceeds or who may be determined to not be entitled to said proceeds, particularly with the aforedescribed Competing Claims." [27] at ¶ 47.
According to the terms of the Policy, [27], Ex. A. at p. 9/20. Again, there is no dispute that Emma Raine is the Beneficiary under the terms of the Policy. The Policy goes on to provide that "[i]f the interest of all designated Beneficiaries has terminated, any proceeds will be paid to the Owner or his estate or successors." Id. Garden State asserted, and the Estate argues, that the Beneficiary's interest could terminate under what is known as the Slayer Statute,3 which provides as follows:
If any person willfully cause or procure the death of another in any way, he shall not inherit the property, real or personal, of such other; but the same shall descend as if the person so causing or procuring the death had predeceased the person whose death he perpetrated.
MISS. CODE ANN. § 91-1-25. In this diversity action, the governing law on substantive matters is Mississippi law, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi has held that a beneficiary who has willfully taken the life of an insured cannot recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy. See Dill v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 797 So. 2d 858, 864 (citing Gholson v. Smith, 48 So. 2d 603 (1950)); see also Davis v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 560 F. Supp. 723, 728 (N.D. Miss. 1983) ().
Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Hannah, No. 1:12-cv-00087, 2014 WL 1413540 at *9 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 11, 2014) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue for trial, and it may do so by pointing out "'the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case.'" Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 913 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832 (1992) (quoting Latimer v. Smithkline & French Labs., 919 F.2d 301, 301 (5th Cir. 1990)).
If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party who will have the burden of proof at trial must come forward with summary judgment evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue; that evidence must be such that if introduced at trial it would suffice to prevent a directed verdict against the nonmovant. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 321. Although this Court considersthe evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir.1990), conclusory allegations unsupported by concrete and particular facts will not prevent an award of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).
In order to terminate Emma Raine's interest in the proceeds, the Estate bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Emma Raine willfully caused or procured the death of James R. Raine. Dill, 797 So. 2d at 866; Cf. Davis, 560 F. Supp. at 728. Emma Raine has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Estate of James R. Raine cannot prove an essential element of its claim and as a matter of law it is entitled to summary judgment, finding her the rightful beneficiary under the Policy. In particular, Emma Raine claims that the Estate cannot establish that she willfully caused or brought about the death of James R. Raine.
Because the Estate bears the burden of proof at trial to show that Emma Raine willfully caused or procured the death of James R. Raine, Emma Raine is not required to "produce evidence negating the existence of a genuine issue of fact, but only to "point out the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case." Skotak, 953 F.2d at 913. She has satisfied that burden. Emma Raine contends that there has simply been no evidence adduced in discovery that the Estate can use to support its position—no witnesses named, no expert, no copy or description of any document, and there has been no written discovery propounded, no subpoenas issued, and no depositions taken.
In response, the Estate submitted a response and memorandum [46, 47] and contends that a genuine issue of material fact exists because "[g]ood and sufficient evidence exists which would tend to prove Emma's involvement in the death of James R. Raine. . . ." [46] at p. 2.However, the evidentiary materials submitted by the Estate in response to the summary judgment motion are insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
In its memorandum, the Estate claims that it can show by a preponderance of the evidence that Emma Raine willfully caused or procured James R. Raine's death. It claims that it will call Emma Raine as an adverse witness and recites what the Estate "expects" Emma Raine will admit to. The Estate also asserts that Angela Fowler and Enoch Raine will testify from their personal knowledge about the decedent's and Emma Raine's relationship and "statements that have been made by Emma and her actions." [47] at p. 2. The Estate states that the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Emma Raine has been convicted for the murder of her second husband and "previously collected on an insurance policy she knew she was not entitled to receive." There is no citation to any record evidence—no...
To continue reading
Request your trial