Kowalski v. Jackson National Life Insurance, 981 F. Supp. 2d 1309

Background

Policy issued in 1992 on Florence Kowalski; Edward Kowalski was owner and beneficiary; Lisa Kowalski later paid premiums.
Edward Kowalski died in 2008; at issue is who owns the policy and who is entitled to proceeds.
Kowalski sought to change ownership; Jackson issued a Nov. 7, 2008 letter confirming ownership change, though Kowalski did not complete a beneficiary change.
After Edward’s death, Kowalski paid premiums and took a $50,000 loan against the policy; the loan was not repaid.
Court found, as of July 1, 2013, that the Estate is entitled to proceeds under the policy’s express terms; Kowalski later moved for summary judgment on unjust enrichment and related claims.
Estate contends Kowalski was not validly owner; Kowalski asserts ownership/change of ownership procedures did not require probate; court ultimately grants Kowalski summary judgment on unjust enrichment and imposes constructive trust on proceeds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Kowalski the policy owner despite probate issues?	Kowalski contends ownership was validly changed by written notice to Jackson.	Wilson argues Kowalski ownership was improper because Edward Kowalski’s will was not probated and executor appointed.	Kowalski ownership grant is upheld for purposes of related claims.
Does the policy preclude unjust enrichment claims against the Estate?	Kowalski argues the Estate is not a party to the contract yet the policy proceeds unjustly enrich the Estate.	Estate argues the contract controls and unjust enrichment cannot attach when an express contract governs.	Policy does not bar Kowalski’s unjust enrichment claim against the Estate.
Can Kowalski prevail on unilateral mistake as to unjust enrichment/constructive trust?	Kowalski contends unilateral mistake by Kowalski and others supports unjust enrichment and constructive trust.	Estate argues Kowalski’s mistake is sole and thus bar relief.	Unilateral mistake does not bar Kowalski’s unjust enrichment or constructive trust claims.
Whether Kowalski is entitled to unjust enrichment and a constructive trust on policy proceeds.	Kowalski asserts she conferred a benefit; the Estate retained it; inequitable to allow retention.	Estate argues alternative remedies and contractual controls limit relief.	Kowalski entitled to unjust enrichment and constructive trust on policy proceeds.

Key Cases Cited

Thompkins v. Lil' Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes law-of-the-case concepts in similar contexts)
Moynet v. Courtois, 8 So.3d 377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (express contract bars unjust enrichment when party is party to contract)
Diamond "S" Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So.2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (no unjust enrichment where express contract exists between parties)
Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 899 So.2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (elements of unjust enrichment)
Logus Mfg. Corp. v. United States Life Insurance Co., 845 F.Supp.2d 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (equitable arguments cannot trump contract terms when party is not a party to contract)
Alvarez v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 905 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (unjust enrichment precluded where plaintiff received contract benefit on ship)
Prohias v. Pfizer, 490 F.Supp.2d 1228 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (unjust enrichment not stated where plaintiff paid for and received drug)
Sharp v. Bowling, 511 So.2d 363 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (unilateral mistake may require restitution in certain windfall scenarios)
Nordberg v. Green, 638 So.2d 91 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (unilateral mistakes and their effect on liability)
Graham v. Clyde, 61 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1952) (unilateral error in bidding context; not directly applicable here)
Wadlington v. Edwards, 92 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1957) (constructive trusts to prevent unjust enrichment)
Tolin (Estate of), 622 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1993) (constructive trust where mistake by one party causes enrichment)