Priori v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Civ.A.99-A-1245-N.

• Decision Date: 11 April 2000
• Docket Number: No. Civ.A.99-A-1245-N.,Civ.A.99-A-1245-N.
• Citation: 92 F.Supp.2d 1264
• Parties: Don PRIORI, individually and as Executor for the Estate of Lena Priori, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

92 F.Supp.2d 1264

Don PRIORI, individually and as Executor for the Estate of Lena Priori, Deceased, Plaintiff, v.The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, Defendants.

No. Civ.A.99-A-1245-N.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

April 11, 2000.

Jackson G. Shores, Jr., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

M. Christian King, Melody L. Hurdle, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALBRITTON, Chief Judge.

I.INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, the Prudential Insurance Company of America ("Prudential") on March 8, 2000(Doc. # 9), and on a Motion to Strike Affidavit, filed by Prudential on April 5, 2000(Doc. # 10).

The Plaintiff, Don Priori("Priori") originally filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama.The case was subsequently removed to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.Priori has asked that the court determine the benefit due to him as the beneficiary of his mother's whole life insurance policy which was issued by Prudential.

For the reasons to be discussed, Prudential's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be GRANTED.

II.FACTS

The submissions of the parties establish the following facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movant:

Lena Priori was issued a whole life insurance policy with a face amount of $225 in 1948.The face amount of the policy was increased to $249 in 1980.The total amount of premiums paid by Lena Priori was $339.25.

Lena Priori died on September 29, 1996.The Plaintiff in this case, Priori, is Lena Priori's son and the beneficiary of her life insurance policy.After Lena Priori's death, Priori submitted a Request for Insurance Benefits to Prudential.Prudential issued a check for $1048.65 to Priori.Priori returned the check to Prudential contending that the check was "$344,000 or so too low."Defendant's Exhibit 5.Prudential subsequently mailed another check to Priori in the amount of $1048.65, which was returned to Prudential by Priori.

Priori has provided this court with a letter written by a person, who Priori apparently intends to offer as an expert, in which he states that Prudential owes Priori varying amounts of benefits under the policy, ranging in amount from $231,999 to $525,165.SeePlaintiff's Exhibit B to Ford Affidavit.

III.SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).

The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the `pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."Id. at 323.The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing, or pointing out to, the district court that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof.Id. at 322-324.

Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e)"requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the `depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'"Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548.To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party"must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986).On the other hand, the evidence of the nonmovant must be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in its favor.Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).

After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

IV.DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that Prudential tendered $1048.65 to Priori as the benefit to which Priori was entitled as the beneficiary of his mother's whole life insurance policy.Prudential's evidence is that the amount tendered consisted of the $249 face amount of the policy, $704.34 in annual dividends in the form of paid-up additional insurance, a $7.20 termination dividend, and $87.11 in death claim interest.SeeDefendant's Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Linda Osteen.

Priori argues that the amount of $1048.65 is insufficient as the benefit on his mother's life insurance policy.Priori relies on a letter in which varying amounts of the benefit purportedly due are advanced which range from $231,999 to $525,165.Priori is essentially making two arguments, one of which is based on an opinion as to the dividend calculations which should have been made under the policy, and the second of which is based on the idea of unjust enrichment.

As to his interpretation of the policy, Priori points out that the policy at issue provides as follows:

While this policy continues in force other than as extended insurance or reduced paid-up insurance, the portion, if any, of the divisible surplus of the Company accruing upon this Policy shall be determined annually by the Board of Directors, and will be credited to this policy as a dividend.Such dividend shall be in the form of a paid-up addition to the amount of insurance.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.Priori states that this provision is ambiguous and should be read to provide for much greater dividends than those which were paid to his mother under her policy.As evidence of this ambiguity, Priori points to Prudential's statement that the dividend declared on the policy in 1951 was 1.2%, which resulted in a paid-up addition of $2.70.Priori states that if $2.70 is the dividend, then that amount of money should have purchased a greater amount of life insurance to be added to the policy face value, and that the $2.70 cannot be both a dividend and the value of paid-up insurance to be purchased by that dividend.

Prudential has provided evidence which explains that under the policy the dividend is actually a dividend rate of 1.2% which, multiplied by the face amount, resulted in a paid-up addition of $2.70.SeeDefendant's Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Linda Osteen.The clear language of the policy is that the dividend would be paid in the form of a paid-up addition to insurance, not as a cash dividend which would then be used to buy paid-up insurance.The court does not, therefore, find an ambiguity in the provision pointed to by Priori.

In addition, although Priori contends that Prudential unfairly retained the cash generated by the policy without paying a cash dividend, the clear language of the policy provides that the dividend will be paid in the form of paid-up additions to insurance.SeePlaintiff's Exhibit 1.

Priori has also provided an affidavit in an attempt to demonstrate that a larger benefit should have been paid under the policy.The affidavit is from Bill Ford, an associate of Priori's, who states that he has twenty-five years of experience in the insurance industry.Priori appears to be offering Ford as an expert in this case.

Prudential has moved to strike Ford's affidavit on various grounds, one ground being that Priori has not complied with this court's scheduling order requiring the disclosure of expert witnesses at least seventy-five days prior to the pretrial hearing in this case.SeeUniform Scheduling Order, November 5, 1999, at page 3.Another judge of this court has previously granted summary judgment where the evidence sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff was given by an expert who had not been properly disclosed under the court's scheduling order.SeeRobinson v. Ford Motor Company,967 F.Supp. 482(M.D.Ala.1997), aff'd without opinion,144 F.3d 56(11th Cir.1998).This court agrees that Priori has not complied with the scheduling order so as to use Ford as an expert and that the affidavit is due to be stricken.

Even if the court were to consider Ford's affidavit, however, the court does not find that Priori has created genuine issues of fact for trial as to the benefit which should have been paid under the policy.Priori argues, relying on...