Mayo v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.
Citation | 220 F.Supp.2d 714 |
Decision Date | 07 August 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 01-CV-2139.,01-CV-2139. |
Parties | Scott MAYO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Scott Monroe Clearman, Michael D. Myers, Robert H. Espey, II, Dwaine Massey, McClanahan & Clearman, LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Barry A. Chasnoff, Akin Gump et al., San Antonio, TX, Michael M. Wilson, Clements O'Neill et al., Houston, TX, Howard Kleinhendler, Kaye Scholer et al., Myron Kirschbaum, Kaye Scholer LLP, New York City, Daniel M. McClure, Fulbright & Jaworski, Thomas Francis, Hetherington, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, TX, Paul A. Fischer, Jorden Burt LLP, James F. Jorden, Attorney at Law, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION
The parties in this case dispute the validity of corporate-owned life insurance policies purchased by employers on the lives of their employees and former employees. Plaintiffs are Texas citizens suing as representatives of a putative class of individuals, and estates of individuals, who worked for Defendant Camelot Music, Inc. ("Camelot") and Trans World Entertainment Corporation ("Trans World") (collectively, the "Camelot Defendants") and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"). These companies, collectively referred to as the "Employer Defendants," are named in this action as representatives of a putative class of employers who purchased corporate-owned life insurance policies ("COLI policies") insuring the lives of Texas citizens. The Employer Defendants purchased these life insurance policies from various insurance companies, including Hartford Life Insurance Company ("Hartford") and AIG Life Insurance Company ("AIG").
The Court has before it several motions. The Camelot Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.1 The Camelot Defendants also move for summary judgment.2 Plaintiffs have cross-moved for partial summary judgment against the Camelot Defendants.3 Defendant Wal-Mart moves for summary judgment on the claims against it.4 The Wachovia Bank of Georgia, N.A. ("Wachovia"), as trustee ("Trustee") for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Corporation Grantor or Trust ("Wal-Mart Trust"), seeks summary judgment in its favor.5 Defendant Hartford also moves for summary judgment.6 Defendant AIG moves to dismiss and for summary judgment.7 The Court heard argument on these motions on September 7, 2001 and January 11, 2002.8 The parties submitted supplemental materials after the January 11 Hearing.9 On March 5, 2002, the Court issued an opinion exhaustively addressing the parties' contentions in the original motions.10 The Court granted some aspects of certain parties' motions and denied others.
Wal-Mart then filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the March 5th Opinion. Plaintiff Sims Estate has responded,11 and that Motion is ripe for adjudication. The Court granted Wal-Mart's Reconsideration Motion on August 2, 2002.12 The Court has reconsidered all the parties' submissions, the entire record, and the applicable authorities, the Court again grants some aspects of certain parties' motions and denies others. This Amended and Supplemental Memorandum Opinion ("Amended Opinion") modifies various rulings in the March 5th Opinion as to both the Wal-Mart Defendants and the Camelot Defendants. This Amended Opinion supersedes the Court's March 5th Opinion, which is withdrawn.
This case is an uncertified class action that involves a dispute over the rights to benefits from company-owned life insurance policies. Plaintiffs Scott Mayo, Toribio Rochas, Jr., Tomas Pena, Daniel Garza, and Charles W. Holmes, Jr. are Texas citizens who were employees of Defendant Camelot (collectively, sometimes referred to as the "Camelot Plaintiffs"). Another Plaintiff is the Estate of Douglas Sims ("Sims Estate"), which is represented in this action by Deborah Sims, the independent executrix of the Sims Estate and a Texas citizen. Douglas Sims was a Texas citizen who worked for Defendant Wal-Mart until his death on December 1, 1998.
Defendant Camelot was a Pennsylvania corporation. Camelot was acquired in December 1997 by Defendant Trans World, a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Defendant Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas. Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Corporation Grantor Trust ("Wal-Mart Trust" or the "Trust") was established by Wal-Mart in Georgia and is represented in this action by its trustee, Defendant Wachovia, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meadows v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., CIV.A.H-05-2209.
...to the rights of the parties.") (quoting Cheeves v. Anders, 87 Tex. 287, 28 S.W. 274, 275 (1894)); Mayo v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 220 F.Supp.2d 714, 785 n. 250 (S.D.Tex.2002); Stillwagoner v. Travelers Ins. Co., 979 S.W.2d 354, 358 (Tex.App.— Tyler 1998, no pet.) ("[A]lthough the Texas rul......
-
Zermeno v. Mcdonnell Douglas Corp.
...or "factors" listed in RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 188 to determine which law governs. See Mayo v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 220 F.Supp.2d 714, 730 (S.D.Tex.2002); Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika, Ltd., 953 S.W.2d 733, 735-36 (Tex.1997). The relevant factors (a) the place ......
-
Evans v. Tin, Inc.
...with various states are established, the Court is to decide the choice of law issue as a matter of law." Mayo v. HartfordLife Ins. Co., 220 F. Supp. 2d 714, 730 & n.4 (S.D. Tex.2002). "Courts in this circuit have held that factual determinations which are antecedent to the choice of law det......
-
Byerly v. Standard Ins. Co.
...factors must be evaluated "according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue." Mayo v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 220 F. Supp. 2d 714, 751 (S.D. Tex. 2002) aff'd, 354 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 188(2)).8 The Court now p......