450 F.Supp.3d 1258
W.D. Okla.2020Background
- MetLife issued FEGLI benefits for Donald Bradshaw, a USPS retiree; death benefits of $336,000 vested on his death (Dec. 14, 2016).
- Bradshaw previously filed a 1994 beneficiary form naming Tiffany Bradshaw for 50% and then a November 29, 2016 form naming D.B. as sole beneficiary.
- The OPM time stamp shows receipt of the November 29, 2016 form on December 5, 2016 (nine days before death).
- MetLife paid Tiffany $168,124.28 (50% of proceeds) on Feb. 6, 2017, then discovered the later OPM form and paid the correct beneficiary; Tiffany refused to repay the overpayment.
- MetLife sued Tiffany for violations of FEGLIA, conversion, and unjust enrichment; Tiffany failed to respond to discovery or oppose summary judgment and the court deemed MetLife’s facts confessed.
- The court denied MetLife’s conversion claim but granted summary judgment on unjust enrichment, ordering Tiffany to repay $168,124.68 plus prejudgment interest at 6% per annum (per the court’s order).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Nov. 29, 2016 beneficiary designation "received before death" by OPM under 5 U.S.C. § 8705(a)? | MetLife: OPM received the Nov. 29 form on Dec. 5, 2016, before death, so the Nov. 29 designation controlled. | Tiffany: (no responsive filings; implicitly disputes receipt/timeliness) | Held: OPM receipt on Dec. 5, 2016 established; the Nov. 29 designation was effective and displaced the 1994 form. |
| Is MetLife entitled to summary judgment on conversion? | MetLife: Tiffany wrongfully retained funds payable to another. | Tiffany: Payment was voluntary; she did not wrongfully take the money. | Held: Conversion claim denied because MetLife voluntarily paid Tiffany; she did not take funds without consent (no conversion). |
| Is MetLife entitled to restitution/unjust enrichment? | MetLife: Tiffany was unjustly enriched by retaining funds she was not entitled to after MetLife discovered the proper beneficiary. | Tiffany: (no response; no affirmative defense shown) | Held: Summary judgment for MetLife on unjust enrichment; Tiffany must repay $168,124.68. |
| Procedural: Effect of defendant’s failure to respond to summary judgment and local-rule deadline? | MetLife: Facts properly supported should be deemed confessed under LCvR 7.1(g) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). | Tiffany: Did not respond. | Held: Court granted Motion to Deem Confessed; treated MetLife’s properly supported facts as undisputed but still required MetLife to meet the summary-judgment burden (which it did for unjust enrichment). |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidence- and summary-judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Murray v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir.) (effect of failing to respond—facts deemed confessed)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bush, 154 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir.) (FEGLIA requires actual receipt by OPM before death)
- Blair v. Okla. Dep’t of Sec. ex rel. Faught, 231 P.3d 645 (Okla. 2010) (elements and standards for unjust enrichment under Oklahoma law)
- Steenbergen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan of Chickasha, 753 P.2d 1330 (Okla.) (Oklahoma law on conversion elements)
- Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (restitution/assumpsit and related remedial distinctions)