New York Life Insurance v. Apostolidis
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7995
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- NY Life filed an interpleader to deposit Death Benefits from two policies (081 and 131) with the court due to conflicting claims.
- Policy 081 and 131 were issued to insure Konstantinos Apostolidis; primary beneficiary changes are at issue.
- After the insured’s death, Penelope claimed as beneficiary of Policy 131; other family members (Maria, Helen, Lisa, and Penelope) also asserted rights.
- NY Life sought to deposit $129,038.72 plus interest and later discharge from liability, with a permanent injunction against further claims.
- Penelope objected, arguing entitlement to Policy 131 and urging transfer of the matter to Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court.
- The court permitted interpleader jurisdiction, refused transfer, and granted deposit, discharge, and a permanent injunction; it denied attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1335 interpleader jurisdiction is met | NY Life satisfied fund >$500, real fear of double liability, and minimal diversity. | Penelope claims she is entitled to benefits and disputes reduce to merits awaiting resolution; transfer suggested. | Jurisdiction satisfied; interpleader proper |
| Whether the case should be transferred to Suffolk County Surrogate's Court | Maintain federal interpleader; avoid unnecessary state probate proceedings. | Conserve judicial resources by transferring to Surrogate’s Court. | No transfer; federal interpleader jurisdiction retained |
| Whether Penelope's substantive claim defeats interpleader | Interpleader appropriate despite competing claims and potential strength of Penelope's claim. | Penelope is the proper beneficiary and should be paid. | Interpleader proper; disputes to be resolved among claimants |
| Whether deposit, discharge, and injunction relief are proper | Deposit funds, discharge stakeholder, and enjoin further proceedings to protect interpleader remedy. | N/A or not favored due to competing claims. | Deposit ordered; discharge granted; permanent injunction issued |
| Whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded | Disinterested stakeholder may recover fees when appropriate. | N/A or contested; Penelope did not seek fees. | Attorneys’ fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Fidelity Brokerage Servs., LLC v. Bank of China, 192 F.Supp.2d 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (interpleader protects stakeholders from multiple claims)
- Washington Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P.C., 985 F.2d 679 (2d Cir. 1993) (minimal diversity suffices in interpleader)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967) (statutory interpleader framework and purpose)
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Dev. Auth., 700 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1983) (two-step interpleader procedure; discharge after deposit)
- Hartford Life Insur. Co. v. Einhorn, 497 F.Supp.2d 398 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (interpleader action maintainable despite probate contexts)
- Dannhardt v. Donnelly, 604 F.Supp.796 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (context for interpleader and related proceedings)
- In re Thomas an Agnes Carvel Foundation, 36 F.Supp.2d 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (probate-related discussions in interpleader context)
- Ashton v. The Josephine Bay Paul & C. Michael Paul Found., 918 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1990) (jurisdictional and equitable considerations in interpleader)