National Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Bruce, 18057-1

• Decision Date: 11 March 1970
• Docket Number: No. 18057-1,17935-1.,18057-1
• Citation: 309 F. Supp. 1314
• Parties: The NATIONAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Gary P. BRUCE et al., Defendants. The METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Gary P. BRUCE et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

309 F. Supp. 1314

The NATIONAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Gary P. BRUCE et al., Defendants.

The METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Gary P. BRUCE et al., Defendants.

Nos. 18057-1, 17935-1.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

March 11, 1970.

James H. McLarney, Swanson, Midgley, Jones, Eager & Gangwere, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Terrell, Van Osdol & Magruder, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff National Life and Accident Insurance Co.

Elmer C. Jackson, Jr., Kansas City, Kan., S. L. Willens, Tucker, Charno, Willens, Jouras & Tucker, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Gary P. Bruce.

Harold Holliday, Sr., Kansas City, Mo., for defendants Tracy A. Watson and Tyrona Mitchell.

MEMORANDUM

JOHN W. OLIVER, District Judge.

We believe counsel for the interpleading plaintiff insurance companies are entitled to know the principles we believe are applicable to the exercise of this Court's discretion in awarding, as costs, attorneys' fees to counsel for the interpleading insurance companies. Counsel for Metropolitan Life, in an action involving a $20,000 policy, pray for attorneys' fees of $750 and its costs. Counsel in that case appropriately cite in support of that request Moore's Federal Practice, Volume 3A, ¶ 22.16, pages 3144-3162. The affidavit of Mr. McLarney establishes that counsel make no claim for services rendered their client in connection with any matter other than the interpleader action.

Counsel for the National Life and Accident Insurance Company, on the other hand, in a case involving a $4,000 policy, would seek a total fee of $1,580, to be divided between Terrell, Van Osdol & Magruder ($655) and S. M. Turbovich, of the Kansas City, Kansas Bar ($925). The exhibits attached in support of that request establish that compensation is claimed for services rendered in addition to those necessarily incident to the interpleader action.

National's counsel contend that "it is difficult to draw a line between the services relating directly to the interpleader and to services relating to the case in the Kansas court." They concede, as they must, that the amount of attorneys' fees requested is "not nominal." It is obvious that their request is bottomed on the notion that they are entitled to recover for all the time and services expended by all attorneys in connection not only with the interpleader action but also in preparing to defend the case filed in Kansas. They also contend, at least by implication, that there was something complex about this routine interpleader action and that they rendered a service not only to their own clients but to the defendants and to the Court because the case was promptly settled after a conference with the Court, thus having occupied "very little of the Court's time."

In Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Miller, (D., Minn., 1964) 229 F.Supp. 1018, Judge Larson was presented the question of whether counsel for an interpleading plaintiff insurance company should be allowed a $500 fee for services rendered in connection with the interpleader action. Consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority, he determined that, in spite of an absence of statutory authority, reasonable attorneys' fees may be allowed as a part of the costs of the case to the interpleading plaintiff. (For an example of the contrary view, see Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Burress, (S.D.Cal., 1960) 181 F. Supp. 391). A $7,225 policy was involved and Judge Larson stated:

The fees awarded in cases of this nature are generally modest since the expenditure of time involved is not great and the fund limited. Attorneys' fees of $200 will be awarded, plus $44.60 for service and filing fees. The award of attorneys' fees is, of course, without prejudice to the rights of plaintiff's counsel for additional attorneys' fees from his client. Ibid at 1021.

Rule 4.12 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Missouri, V.A.M.R., state appropriate guidelines for fixing the amount of attorneys' fees. Although not binding on this Court, the criteria set forth are generally acknowledged to be proper. It is apparent that Judge Larson had similar considerations in mind when he cut the $500 request involved in the Equitable case to $200. Changes in economic conditions and the value of the dollar suggest that services worth $200 in 1964 should be worth $250 in 1970. We believe that amount should be allowed in both cases even though the policies involve different amounts. The interpleader actions involved the expenditure of minimal time and effort. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of two more routine interpleader actions than were involved in the cases now before the Court.

The discussion in ¶ 22.16 2 of Moore emphasizes that all courts exercise their discretion in routine interpleader actions consistent with the recognition made by Judge Larson that "the expenditure of time involved is not great" and...