Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Mayberg
1:23-cv-21461
| S.D. Fla. | Apr 27, 2024Background
- Connecticut General Life Insurance Company paid monthly annuity payments to Morton Mayberg following a 1981 personal injury settlement; after Morton's death in 2016, payments continued into a joint account held with his wife Judith.
- Plaintiff claims Judith and her six children (the "Mayberg children") failed to report Morton's death, resulting in $333,000 in overpayments until December 2022.
- Plaintiff sent letters to Judith and each child seeking repayment; none returned funds or responded.
- Plaintiff filed claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, money had and received (against all children), as well as fraudulent inducement and aiding and abetting fraud (against select parties).
- The original complaint was dismissed as a "shotgun pleading" for failing to specify each defendant's alleged actions; an amended complaint followed with more detailed allegations, including property transfers among family members.
- The Mayberg children moved to dismiss all claims against them, arguing insufficient factual allegations particularly as to their connection with the funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment (Count I) | Mayberg children retained overpayment, should return it | No direct benefit conferred; no relationship with Plaintiff | Dismissed for all children; insufficient direct benefit as required under FL law. |
| Conversion (Count II) | All children exercised dominion over overpaid funds | Only conclusory/allegations; insufficient link to funds | Dismissed for all except Menachem; only facts re: Menachem were sufficient. |
| Money had and received (Count III) | Children should return money wrongfully received/retained | No allegation funds are in children’s possession | Dismissed for all; no showing that children currently possess/retain the overpayment. |
| Aiding and abetting fraud (Count V) | Children helped Judith omit material facts to perpetrate fraud | No duty alleged to disclose, so no underlying fraud | Dismissed for all; fraud by omission requires a legal duty, not alleged here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must plausibly state entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (labels/conclusions not enough for survival at 12(b)(6))
- Virgilio v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 680 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2012) (unjust enrichment elements under FL law)
- Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2017) (unjust enrichment requires direct benefit)
- Warshall v. Price, 629 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (conversion requires dominion inconsistent with owner)
- Edwards v. Landsman, 51 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (elements of conversion under FL law)
- Friedman v. Am. Guardian Warranty Servs., Inc., 837 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (fraud by omission requires duty to disclose)