BENNETT v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, (OPM) et al, No. 1:2014cv00137 - Document 74 (M.D.N.C. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 12/21/2015; that the Defendant's motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) for lack of jurisdiction (Docket Entry 54 ) be GRANTED. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all other pending motions (Docket Entries 43 , 44 , 51 , 53 ) be DISMISSED as moot. (Garland, Leah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BENNETT v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, (OPM) et al Doc. 74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA LINDA M. BENNETT, Executdx for the Estate of F.,ltzabeth H. Maynard, LINDA M. BENNETT, on behalf of herself and all others similatly situated, ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v ) ) OFF'ICE OF'PERSONNEL ) MAN,\GEMENT (OPM), OFFICE OF' ) F'EDERAL EMPLOYEE'S GROUP ) LIFE INSURNCE (OFEGLI) and ) METROPOLITAN LIFE, ) INSUR,A.NCE. COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) ']..:1.4cv1.37 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This mattet is befote the court on the following motions by Defendants Office of Federal Employee's Group Life Insutance ("OFEGLI") and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (NIetlife): Motion fot Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 44); Motion fot Ptotective Otder @ocket Entty 53); and Motion pending ^re to Dismiss pocket Entry 54). the following motions by Plaintiffs:1 Motion to Amend .,\lso Scheduling Otdet(Docket Entry 43); and Motion Regarding the Suffìciency of Answer or Objection. t Plaintiff Linda Bennett brings this action on her own behalf and also as the Executrix of Elizabeth Maynard's estate. In this Recommendation, unless otherwise noted, the use of the term Plaintiff tefets to Linda Bennett in both her capacities. Dockets.Justia.com pocket Entry 51.) On November 17, 201.5, a hearing was held as to all pending and dpe motions.2 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on February 18, 2014 against thtee defendants: Office of Personnel Management (OPM); OF'EGLI and Metlife. pocket Entry 1.) Plaintiff asserted causes of action relating to the distribution of beneûts under the life insurance policy of E,ltzal:,eth H. Maynard, Plaintiffls mothet, fot violation of the Federal Employee's Group Life Insurance ct of 1,954,5 U.S.C. S 8701 et seq. ("FEGLI"), breach of contract, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional disttess, unfair settlement practices, and ftaud. (Compl. at2,Docket Entry 1.) Plaintiff asked for a jury tttal,a reversal of the life insutance payments already disbutsed to Pamela Roney, and compensatory and punitive damages.3 (Id. at 14.) Aftet Plaintiff fi.led this action, Metlife, without conceding ny wrongdoing, tendered payment to Plaintiff in the full benefit amount, plus interest. Defendants fìled their motion fot summary judgment on June 8, 201.5, atguing that because Plaintiff has teceived all that she could have received under the Fedetal Employees Gtoup Life Insurance Ptogram ("FEGLI"), she is entitled to no futthet relief. (Docket trnty 44.) Plaintiff subsequently returned the check to Defendants. (Id. at 2 n.'1.) On August 31,, 20'1,5, Defendants filed a ' At the hearing the Court orally granted two of Plaintiff s other modons, for exemption ftom settlement conference and for extension of time to file a response to the mod.on for protective ordet. (Jee Docket Entries 42,63.) ,{,dditionally, Plaintiff withdtew het motion fot an evidentiary hearing. (Docket Entry 60.) 3 By otder dated December 15, 20'l,4,Defendant OPM was dismissed ftom the case. (Docket Etttty 29.) Thus, in this Recommendation the collectìve term "Defendants" tefers to Defendants Metlife and OFEGLI. 2 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Docket Entry 54.) Defendants argue that the case should be dismissed because there is no longer a case or controvetsy, Plaintiffls lawsuit is moot, and this court no longet has subject matter judsdiction in this matter. (d. at2.) II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This action involves benefits under Elizabeth Maynatd's life insutance policy issued through Metlife and FEGLI. Elizabeth Maynard worked for the Depatment of Veterans '\ffaits. (,\ffidavit of Jetel Robettson,,{.ttach. 1, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., DocketEntry (hereinafter "Robettson -,\ff.').) Maynard died on October 20,20'1,2. On Maynard completed a Designation ,\pril 44-1, 1.8,201.2, of Beneficiary form, identi$ring Pamela Roney as the primary beneficiary under the policy. S.obertson Aff. Ex. 2, Docket Entty 44-3.) Pamela Roney is Plaintiffls sistet and Maynard's daughtet. Plaintiff alleges Maynard changed the benefìciary designation in pril 20'1,2 as a result of undue influence on the part ol Roney. (Compl., 12-1.3.) Undet the ptevious beneficiary desþation form, dated Octobet 22,1991., Plaintiff was desþated as the primary beneficiary of the benefits payable under Maynard's life insurance policy. (R.obetson Aff., Ex. 3.) ftet Maynard's death on October 20, 201,2, Roney filed a claim fot the trEGLI benefìts. On December 2,2013, Metlife paid Roney fi7,754.67, tepresenting benefits in the amount of $7,750, plus interest of fi4.67. Plaintiff asserts that she notified November 2012 that she intended to make a clattø:' Metlife in for the F'E,GLI benefits payable under the policy. She sent her completed claim form to Metlife on December 7, 2012. On December 1,8, 201,2, Metlife denied Plaintiffs claim because she was not the designated beneficiary. On January 1,8, 201,3, Metlife notified Plaintiff that 3 it had aheady paid the FEGLI benefits to Roney. On June 2, 201.5, subsequent notwithstanding the payment alll:eady made to the filing of this lawsuit to the named and beneficiary under the policy, Defendants also tendered the full benefit amount, plus interest, to Plaintiff. (R.obetson Aff., Ex. 4, Docket E.,tty 44-6.) III. DISCUSSION Article III of the United States Constitution "confines the federal courts to adjudicating actual 'cases' and 'conúovetsies."' Allen u. Il/right,468 U.S. 731,750 (1984). To invoke a federal court's iurisdiction, "a plainttff must demonsttate that he possesses a legally cognizable interest, or 'personal stake', in the outcome of the actfon." u. S1ncryk,'1.33 S. Genesis Healthcare Corp. Ct. 1523, 1528 Q01,3). There must be a dispute that "is definite concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having advetse legal interests." lVhite u. and Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.,91.3 F.2d 1,65,1,67 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Aetna Ufe Ins. Co. a. Haworth,300 U.S. 227,240-41, (1937)). dditionally, the United States Supteme Court has noted: corollary to this case-or-controversy requirement is that aî actuzl controversy must be extant at all stages of teview, not merely at the time the complaint is fìled. . . . If an intervening circumstance deptives the plaintiff of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit at any point during litigation, the action can no longet ptoceed and must be dismissed as moot. A Gene¡is Healtltcare,l33 S. Ct. at 1,528; see also Virginia ex. rel Coleman u. Calfano, 631. F.2d 324, 326 (4th Cir. 19S0) ("Federal courts have no judsdiction to decide moot cases because of the case or controversy requirement of rticle Rules III of the Constitution."). Undet the Federal of Civil Procedure, the Court m^y dismiss ^ case at arry time if that the case lacks subject m^tter jurisdiction. Feo. R. Crv. P. 12(h)(3). 4 the coutt determines FEGLIA established a life insurance program for federal employees. Undet FEGLI, an employee may designate a benefici^ty to receive the proceeds of her life insurance at the time of het death. The ptogram is administered by the OPM. 5 U.S.C. 871,6. Under the authodty granted to Metlife. Jee $ it by FEGLI, OPM 8709; 5 C.F.R. S 870.102 Q013). S entered into a contract with Metlife administeted Plaintiffs claim under the FEGLI ptogram. Undet FEGLIA, upon an employee's death, life insutance proceeds are paid in specified "order of preference." 5 U.S.C. $ 8705(a). The proceeds accrue "[f]itst to the beneficiary or beneficiaties designated by the employee received befote death." Id. in a sþed and witnesses writing Undet the OPM tegulations, an employee "may change [a] beneficiary at any time without the knowledge or consent of the ptevious beneficiary." cFR S a 5 870.802(Ð. The rights and obligations of the patties under the FEGLI progtam are governed by the Federal Enplo1ees' Groap Ufe Insaranæ Program Standard Contractþr 2012 between OPM and Metlife (the "Conú^ct"). (Contract, Robettson -Aff., Ex. L, Docket Entty 44-2.) The contract ptovides that "[i]n any action at law ot equity that relates to the trEGLI Ptogtam, the claimant will be limited in the amount of tecovery of benefits that would be payable under the FEGLI Ptogram. No extra-contractual, punitive, compensatorf, consequential damages or attorneys' fees shall be tecovetable undet the FEGLI Ptogram." Section 1,.1.7,8x. 1 to Robertson Affidavit, Docket Entry 44-2.) "ffihete (Contract, a beneficiary has been duly named, the insurance proceeds she is owed under FEGLIA cannot be allocated to another person by operation of state law." Hillrzan 5 u. MareÍta, 133 S. Ct. 1.943,1953 Q01,3) Under the Contact here, the only cogntzable claim for recovery is fot payment of benefits under the Policy. Plaintiffs claims fot relief, including "the tevetsal of any payments; compensation fot economic loss and emotional distress, punitive damages, a¡d a¡ order to recover any fraudulent claims" are simply not cognizable undet the terms of the Contract and any damages beyond the FEGLI benefits are nottecovetable. Finally, as atgued by Defendants, Plaintiff has teceived all that she is entitled to teceive under FEGLI, theteby tendering het claim moot. As noted by the Supteme Coutt in Genesis Healthcare, stake where an intervening citcumstance deprives the plaintiff in the outcome of the litigation, the action must be dismissed 1,528. as of a petsonal moot. 133 S. Ct at All Plaintiff here was entitled to under the Contact is recovery of the benefits that would be payable under the FEGLI program. Because Metlife has now tendeted payment of those benefits to Plaintiff, plus intetest, she has received all the benefìts to which she is argtably entitled. 2006 See WL 2191254 Hines a. Sheet Metal lYorkers' Nat'l Healtlt Fund Plan, No. 1:05CV1159, (À4.D.N.C. }une 1,4, 2006) (unpublished) (whete plaintiff fi.led suit for health coverage under a union health plan, and the plan's trustees reinstated het health coverage after suit was filed, court dismissed the case as moot). Plaintiffs tefusal to accept the payment tendered by Defendants does not change the tesult. See, e.!., IWallace u. Crown Corþ. and Seal Pen¡ion Plan, Civ. Action No. 4:05-673-RBH, 2007 WL 3176233 P.S.C. Oct. 26,2007) (case mooted by defendant's disability payment to plaintiff, despite the fact that defendant did not admit that plaintiff was entided to the benefits and the patties had not entered into a settlement agreement). 6 Plaintiff argues that 5 U.S.C. S 8705 does not authonze Metlife to make payments undet the facts of this case. Howevet, there is nothing in the statutory ¡u¡o scheme which allows Plaintiff to assert wtongful payment by Metlife under these citcumstances. In othet wotds, there is not a private cause of action to enforce the rights and obligations of Metlife under its conttact with OPM. Moreover, Plaintiffs argument that she will subject to cdminal tax liability caselaw or other authority if be she accepts the payment is unavailing. Plaintiff offets no to support het arguments. This coutt appteciates that Plaintiff feels strongly about this matter. Flowevet, a cofiunon sense application of FEGLIA leads to the conclusion that Plaintiff is entitled to no more than the benefits under the life insurance policy issued to PlaintifPs mothet pursuant to the FEGLI program. The Court concludes that the tendet to Plaintiff by Metlife of the benefits payable under trEGLI and the Contract, all that Plaintiff is atguably entitled to, mooted Plaintiffs claim, thereby depriving the Coutt of jurisdiction over the action.a ,{.ccordingly, F'eo. R. Crv. p. 12 IT IS RECOMMENDED (r)ø that Defendants'motion to dismiss undet for lack of jurisdiction (Docket Enry 54) be GRANTED. IT IS a In addition to bringing this acdon on her own behalf, Plaintiff purports to bring this acd.on on behalf of the Estate of Elizabeth Maynard. However, it is clear that the Estate does not have a claim to the ptoceeds in this matter. Ptoceeds payable pursuant to FEGLIA arc pa;Ld directly to the desþated beneficiaries under the policy, and are not consideted pat of the estate of the insured (unless estate is named as the desþated beneficiary) . Sæ 5 U.S.C. $ 8705(a). Additionally, while the caption of the Complaint names Linda Bennett "on behalf of hetself and alJ othets similarþ situated," it is clear that only Plaintiff and Roney (as past and current desþated beneficiaries) have any intetest in the proceeds payable undet the FEGLI policy. Indeed, if Plaintiff is attempting to ssert a class action, she has never filed a motion to certi$r a class, and het attempt to represent a class of "others similady situated" is unsuccessful. 7 FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all other pending motions (Docket Entries 43; 44:' 51;53) be DISMISSED as moot.s L Wdster Stem !\lagistnttJudge Durham, Notth Carobna December 21,20L5 t There are two other pending motions which are not yet ripe: Plaintiffs Motion to Compel pocket Etttry 70) and Defendant's Motion fot Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Compel. (Docket Etttty 72.) In the event the district court adopts this tecommendadon and grants the motion to dismiss, these two modons will be moot. 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
