Allen Blake v. the Prudential Life Insurance Company of America
683 F. App'x 69
2d Cir.2017Background
- Allen Blake (plaintiff) submitted a life-insurance claim to Prudential after the death of his ex-wife, Pearl Blake, falsely representing he was her husband; Prudential paid the claim and Blake was later convicted of mail fraud for the misrepresentation.
- Blake sued Prudential asserting breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud based on Prudential’s handling and alleged failure to notify him about a supposed “conversion” right.
- Blake’s central legal theory: upon divorce he could convert his ex-wife’s dependent group coverage into an individual policy and thus obtain benefits or notice of the conversion right.
- Prudential’s position: the conversion privilege and any related notice duty belonged to the dependent (Pearl Blake) under the group policy and New York law, not to Blake.
- The District Court granted judgment on the pleadings for Prudential under Rule 12(c); Blake appealed pro se. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blake had a statutory or contractual conversion right to convert ex-wife’s dependent coverage into an individual policy | Blake: divorce gave him conversion privilege and thus entitlement/notification | Prudential: conversion right belongs to the dependent (ex-wife); Blake had no conversion entitlement or notice right | No conversion right for Blake; conversion privilege belonged to the dependent, not plaintiff; judgment affirmed |
| Whether Prudential had a duty to notify Blake of conversion rights | Blake: Prudential failed to notify him of conversion opportunity | Prudential: no duty to notify someone who did not possess the conversion right | No duty to notify Blake because he lacked any conversion right |
| Whether Prudential’s alleged misrepresentations/omissions support tort or contract claims | Blake: misrepresentations/omissions caused loss of insurance entitlement | Prudential: claims fail because he had no underlying legal right to the benefit or conversion | Claims fail: wrongful conduct premised on non-existent legal entitlement cannot support relief |
| Whether any right to death benefit survived termination of dependent status | Blake: argued entitlement despite divorce timing and filing technicalities | Prudential: dependent coverage ended at divorce judgment; any limited 90-day rule did not give Blake rights | Court: Blake had no entitlement; divorce effective when entered, and 90-day survival (if relevant) did not create rights for Blake |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardy v. N.Y. City Health & Hosp. Corp., 164 F.3d 789 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(c) is de novo)
- Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.) (Rule 12(c) standard same as Rule 12(b)(6))
- Keeling v. Hars, 809 F.3d 43 (2d Cir.) (pro se submissions construed liberally)
- Joseph v. Holder, 720 F.3d 228 (5th Cir.) (divorce judgment can be effective between spouses when entered, without separate filing)
- United States v. Blake, [citation="558 F. App'x 129"] (2d Cir.) (criminal conviction upholding mail fraud conviction based on insurance claim misrepresentation)