Rice v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–30639.,13–30639. |
| Citation | 770 F.3d 1122 |
| Parties | Nathan RICE; Brandon Rice ; Jonathon Rice; Jessica Rice; Brenda Rice, on behalf of her Minor Daughter, M.R., Individually and on behalf of their deceased father Gerald Rice, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Joel Arnold, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Livingston Parish Sheriff's Deputy; WILLIE GRAVES, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Livingston Parish Sheriff, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Kearney Soniat Loughlin, Loughlin & Loughlin, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Bradley Jon Betlach, Attorney, Nilan Johnson Lewis, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, George Davidson Fagan, Margaret Frohn Swetman, Esq., Leake & Andersson, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, Stephen R. Whalen, Druit George Gremillion, Jr., Esq., Attorney, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Before DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,* District Judge.
Plaintiffs–Appellees Nathan Rice, Brandon Rice, Jonathan Rice, Jessica Rice, and Brenda Rice1 (collectively the “Rice Plaintiffs”) brought suit against Deputy Joel Arnold (“Arnold”) and Sheriff Willie Graves (“Graves”) alleging various violations of federal and state law after Arnold fatally shot their father, Gerald Rice (“Rice”), while responding to a 911 call. The Rice Plaintiffs also filed suit against ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (“ReliaStar”) to recover $179,000 they allege ReliaStar owes them under Rice's accidental death policy. Arnold and Graves filed motions for summary judgment, which the district court granted, dismissing all of the claims against them. The Rice Plaintiffs and ReliaStar filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to the death benefits issue, and the district court granted ReliaStar's motion and denied the Rice Plaintiffs' motion. On appeal, the Rice Plaintiffs challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to Arnold, Graves, and ReliaStar. We affirm.
On January 27, 2010, Ryan Craig (“Craig”), Rice's nephew, placed a 911 call stating that Rice was sitting in Rice's truck with a loaded gun to his head and threatening to commit suicide. Arnold and Deputy Johnson (“Johnson”) went to Rice's house in response to the 911 call. Craig told Arnold and Johnson that Rice was armed, had been drinking, had taken a lot of medication, and that Rice had a problem with law enforcement.
Arnold and Johnson entered Rice's home without a warrant, and Arnold saw Rice sitting in his truck in his garage with a gun to his head. Arnold and Johnson retreated to the kitchen for cover (a small hallway connected the kitchen to the garage). While Arnold and Johnson remained in the kitchen, Arnold repeatedly asked Rice to put his gun down. Rice refused, saying he wanted to come into the kitchen to get a beer. While Arnold and Johnson were in Rice's kitchen, they heard a single gunshot. Arnold and Johnson went to the garage and determined that Rice had not injured himself; it was later discovered that Rice had shot a single bullet into the wall in the garage. The deputies again asked Rice to relinquish his gun as they retreated to the kitchen, but Rice refused.
Rice exited his truck and began walking toward the kitchen.2 Arnold repeatedly told Rice to put the gun down. While continuing to walk toward the kitchen, Rice stated, “I want to commit suicide.” Arnold then fired four shots at Rice, hitting Rice in the chest three times. Johnson, who was also present in the kitchen at the time, did not fire at Rice. Rice later died from the gunshot wounds
.
Rice was insured through a group life insurance policy issued by ReliaStar through his employer. The policy provided for basic and supplemental life insurance, and the Rice Plaintiffs, Rice's beneficiaries under the policy, were entitled to receive accidental life benefits if Rice died as the result of a covered accident. Rice's policy defined accident as “an unexpected, external, violent and sudden event.” After Rice's death, the Rice Plaintiffs filed a claim for the $179,000 accidental death benefit.
ReliaStar denied the claim, explaining that Rice's death did not qualify as an accidental death; he put himself in a position in which he should have known that serious injury or death could occur as a result of his actions. The Rice Plaintiffs appealed the denial, and ReliaStar forwarded the appeal to its ERISA Appeals Committee, composed of three people who were not part of the original benefit determination. The ERISA Appeals Committee affirmed the denial of the claims. After the Rice Plaintiffs complained about the ERISA appeals process, ReliaStar agreed to provide a second appeal. As part of this second appeal, the committee interviewed Brandon Rice (“Brandon”), Rice's son who was outside the home on the day of his father's death. Brandon stated he heard his father ask the deputies to leave. But he also acknowledged that he was not in the house, did not know what happened, and had not spoken to his father before or during the incident.
They also asserted claims against Arnold's supervisor, Graves, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, arguing that he was vicariously responsible for Arnold's actions.
Arnold and Graves immediately moved to strike paragraphs 27–29 of the Rice Plaintiffs' complaint. In paragraph 27, the Rice Plaintiffs alleged that Arnold had a MySpace page featuring a picture of a movie character played by Clint Eastwood with the caption “How I feel most of the time.” In paragraph 28, the Rice Plaintiffs alleged that Arnold had battered, brutalized, falsely arrested, and maliciously prosecuted a seventy-year-old man. Finally in paragraph 29, the Rice Plaintiffs alleged that Rice was “shot and killed ... by the deputy with a documented history of unprovoked violence and with the emotional state—‘most of the time!!!!’—of a trigger-happy anti-hero of the 1960s cinema.”
Adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court struck paragraphs 27 and 29, but denied the motion as to paragraph 28. The court found that paragraph 28 “could certainly be relevant to [the Rice Plaintiffs'] contentions that Sheriff Graves was negligent in hiring, retaining, training, and/or supervising Deputy Arnold.” The court, however, struck paragraphs 27 and 29 “because they are merely argumentative and prejudicial ... and do not add to the substantive allegations of the complaint.” There was no evidence linking the printed picture from MySpace to Arnold; Arnold's name did not appear anywhere on the printout, nor was there any indication that the image was tied to a MySpace account belonging to Arnold. The court characterized paragraph 29 as “essentially the equivalent of ‘name-calling.’ ”
Arnold and Graves then argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and each filed a motion for summary judgment on the federal and state law claims. The district court found that they were protected by qualified immunity and granted both motions for summary judgment.
The Rice Plaintiffs sued ReliaStar in Louisiana state court before ReliaStar completed its second ERISA appeal. After removing the case to federal court, ReliaStar completed its second ERISA appeal and again denied the Rice Plaintiffs' claim for Rice's accidental death benefits.
ReliaStar and the Rice Plaintiffs then filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted ReliaStar's motion. The district court found ReliaStar's denial of the accidental death benefits was not arbitrary and capricious (and therefore not an abuse of discretion) because: (1) the decision was supported by substantial evidence; (2) there was a rational connection between the known facts and ReliaStar's decision; and (3) applying the facts to the Fifth Circuit's accidental death test supported granting ReliaStar's motion.
The Rice Plaintiffs timely appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Arnold, Graves, and ReliaStar.
The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for the alleged constitutional violations and the ERISA claim, and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for the state law claims. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). This Court views all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draws all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor. Coleman v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir.1997). If the movant shows the absence of any material fact, the nonmovant “must ... designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc) (per curiam). The nonmovant “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co.
...770 F.3d 1122Nathan RICE; Brandon Rice; Jonathon Rice; Jessica Rice; Brenda Rice, on behalf of her Minor Daughter, M.R., Individually and on behalf of their deceased father Gerald Rice, Plaintiffs–Appellantsv.RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Joel Arnold, Individually and in his Official Ca......