Kriebel v. Long
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6151
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Rocco Sgro, a federal employee and TSP participant, died on December 18, 2011; two sisters sought death benefits as named beneficiaries.
- Sgro allegedly completed a TSP-3 beneficiary form on January 16, 2007, with his coworkers Melton and Lindsey witnessing; Melton testified she mailed the form to the TSP office.
- The TSP has no record of receiving Sgro’s TSP-3 and no confirmation letter was generated; participant statements from 2007–2011 indicated no beneficiary on file.
- Plaintiffs applied for benefits in January 2012; TSP denied payment to them and said it would distribute under the statutory order of precedence.
- Plaintiffs sued; both parties moved for summary judgment. The central factual dispute is whether the TSP-3 was received by the TSP before Sgro’s death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mailbox rule (rebuttable presumption of receipt when mailed) applies | Melton’s sworn testimony that she mailed the TSP-3 invokes the mailbox rule to presume receipt | TSP contends regulation requires actual receipt and absence from files shows no receipt | Court holds the mailbox rule applies as a method to determine receipt in this context |
| Whether proof of mailing alone establishes receipt as a matter of law | Melton’s testimony and routine practice make proof of mailing sufficient to shift burden | TSP argues lack of a TSP record and confirmation rebuts presumption; actual receipt required | Court rejects awarding judgment to Plaintiffs on mailing alone; proof of mailing shifts burden to TSP to rebut |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate for either party given the record | Plaintiffs contend undisputed mailing evidence entitles them to judgment | TSP argues its procedures and lack of file entry create genuine dispute | Court finds genuine issues of material fact exist and denies both cross-motions for summary judgment (except on mailbox-rule applicability) |
| Standard for rebutting the mailing presumption | N/A — Plaintiffs rely on presumption to shift burden | TSP may rebut by showing mail-handling, processing procedures, searches, or other evidence that the form was not received | Court outlines that TSP must produce evidence of non-receipt; credibility and facts for receipt/non-receipt are for the factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1928) (establishes the federal "mailbox rule" presumption of delivery)
- Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, 269 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2001) (applies mailbox rule to determine receipt of retirement-plan forms)
- Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2009) (distinguishes contexts where mailbox rule is inappropriate, e.g., jurisdictional prerequisites)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard assessing genuine disputes of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)