Aviva Life & Annuity Co. v. White (In Re Millennium Multiple Employer Welfare Benefit Plan)
772 F.3d 634
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Interpleader sought by Aviva in two related bankruptcy-adversary proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335, 2361 and Rule 22.
- Millennium Plan financed benefits by purchasing life insurance policies on participants’ lives from Aviva and others.
- The Plan owned the Policies and paid premiums; benefits and policy proceeds were pooled for participants’ use.
- Whites sued in Tennessee state court alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and related claims against Aviva and insurers.
- Millennium Plan, via bankruptcy trustee, asserted ownership of the Policies and sought to tender cash value to the estate; Aviva deposited the cash value with the court.
- Bankruptcy court granted interpleader relief to protect Aviva from dual liability and issued an injunction limited to ownership claims; Whites dismissed ownership claims in the White Litigation; Aviva’s appeal challenged the scope of the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of interpleader injunction | Aviva argues Holcomb I/II permit broader injunction | Aviva contends scope should cover all related claims | Injunction properly limited to adverse ownership claims to the identifiable stake |
| Whites’ tort claims vs. interpleader asset | Whites’ tort claims relate to misrepresentation, not ownership | Whites’ claims could dilute Aviva's liability tied to premiums | Tort claims are not adverse to Millennium Plan’s ownership; interpleader not proper for those claims |
| Holcomb I/II framework applicability | Holcomb permits broader interpleader relief | Holcomb focuses on adverse, exclusive claims to the asset | Holcomb I/II control interpleader scope; not all related tort claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Holcomb v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 228 F.2d 75 (10th Cir. 1955) (interpleader scope limited to adverse claims to the asset)
- Holcomb v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 255 F.2d 577 (10th Cir. 1958) (companion case confirming focus on adverse claims to asset)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967) (interpleader focuses on the fund; not all multiparty litigation)
- General Atomic Power Co. v. Duke Power Co., 553 F.2d 53 (10th Cir. 1977) (interpleader administers limited property with conflicting claims)
- Knoll v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 369 F.2d 425 (10th Cir. 1966) (interpleader jurisdiction extends to the fund deposited)