Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Sterling Crum, No. 20-11280 (11th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant argued that the district court erroneously held that a life insurance policy issued by Plaintiff Jackson National Life Insurance Company (“Jackson”) to third-party K.C., and subsequently sold by K.C. to Defendant, was void and unenforceable under Georgia law as an illegal human life wagering contract. K.C. acquired the policy, which listed “K.C.” as the insured and named K.C.’s estate as the beneficiary in 1999. At the time, K.C. was HIV positive, and he had a relatively short life expectancy. A few months after he purchased the policy, K.C., with the assistance of a viatical insurance broker, sold the policy to Defendant and named Defendant as its primary beneficiary.
When Defendant learned about K.C.s death, he made a claim for the death benefit under the policy. Jackson declined to pay the benefit and initiated this action seeking a declaration that the policy was void ab initio under Georgia law as an illegal human life wagering contract. The district court concluded that the policy was void and unenforceable under Georgia law, and it entered judgment in favor of Jackson. Defendant appealed, arguing that K.C.’s unilateral intent to sell the policy to a third party without an insurable interest in his life was insufficient to declare the policy void under Georgia law.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed and vacated the judgment entered by the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a determination as to whether Defendant’s claim to benefits under the policy is barred by laches.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 4, 2022.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 1 of 37 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-11280 ____________________ JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant, Appellee, versus STERLING CRUM, Defendant-Counter Claimant, Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-03857-WMR USCA11 Case: 20-11280 2 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 37 20-11280 ____________________ Before BRANCH, GRANT, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In his appeal before this Court, defendant Sterling Crum argued that the district court erroneously held that a life insurance policy issued by plaintiff Jackson National Life Insurance Company (“Jackson”) to third-party Kelly Couch, and subsequently sold by Couch to Crum, was void and unenforceable under Georgia law as an illegal human life wagering contract. Couch acquired the policy, which listed “Kelly Couch” as the insured and named Couch’s estate as the beneficiary, in 1999. At the time, Couch was HIVpositive and he had a relatively short life expectancy. A few months after he purchased the policy, Couch, with the assistance of a viatical insurance broker, sold the policy to Crum and named Crum as its primary beneficiary. Couch died in 2005. Several years later, when Crum learned about Couch’s death, he made a claim for the death benefit under policy. Jackson declined to pay the benefit and initiated this action seeking a declaration that the policy was void ab initio under Georgia law as an illegal human life wagering contract. The district court conducted a bench trial and determined that Couch purchased the policy with the intent to sell it in the near future to an individual without an insurable interest in his life, but without the involvement or complicity of the ultimate purchaser (Crum) at the time of the purchase. Based on those facts and on its interpretation USCA11 Case: 20-11280 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 37 3 of Georgia law, the district court concluded that the policy was void and unenforceable under Georgia law, and it entered judgment in favor of Jackson. Crum appealed, arguing that Couch’s unilateral intent to sell the policy to a third party without an insurable interest in his life was insufficient to declare the policy void under Georgia law. Resolution of Crum’s argument required a determination of whether a life insurance policy is void under Georgia law as an illegal human life wagering contract if it is procured by an individual on his own life for the sole purpose of selling the policy to a third party without an insurable interest in the insured’s life, but without the complicity of the ultimate purchaser at the time of procurement. Because Georgia law did not definitively resolve this issue, we certified the following question to the Georgia Supreme Court: “When an insured has purchased a life insurance policy with the intent to sell the policy to a third party with no insurable interest, must either the subsequent purchaser or an intermediary be complicit in the procurement of the policy before the latter can be deemed to be an illegal wagering contract and thus void ab initio?” See Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Crum, 25 F.4th 854, 863 (11th Cir. 2022).1 1 We certified a second question requesting that the Georgia Supreme Court provide further guidance if its answer to the first question was not a definitive “yes” or “no,” but it was unnecessary for the Georgia Supreme Court to consider the request, given that Court’s response to the first question. See Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 25 F.4th at 863. USCA11 Case: 20-11280 4 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 37 20-11280 The Georgia Supreme Court has now answered this Court’s certified question, holding that “under Georgia law, a life-insurance policy taken out by the insured on his own life with the intent to sell the policy to a third party with no insurable interest, but without a third party’s involvement when the policy was procured, is not void as an illegal wagering contract.” Crum v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., __So. 3d__, 2022 WL 14154472, at *1 (Ga. Oct. 25, 2022). With great appreciation to the Georgia Supreme Court for its assistance, we follow its decision and therefore reject Jackson’s argument that the policy issued by Jackson on Couch’s life—which policy Crum subsequently purchased and became named as its primary beneficiary—is void and unenforceable under Georgia law as an illegal human life wagering contract. The district court’s ruling to the contrary is REVERSED. After the Georgia Supreme Court issued its opinion, Jackson filed a motion to submit supplemental briefing to this Court. In its proposed supplemental brief, which Jackson attached to its motion, Jackson urged this Court to affirm the judgment entered in its favor below on the alternative ground of laches, given the long delay between Couch’s death and Crum’s submission of a claim for the death benefit under the policy. We GRANT Jackson’s motion to submit supplemental briefing, and we have considered its proposed supplemental brief, as well as Crum’s response to the brief. We nevertheless reject Jackson’s request that this Court decide whether Jackson’s second ground for affirmance of the district court is meritorious. Given its conclusion that the insurance policy USCA11 Case: 20-11280 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 5 of 37 5 at issue was void as an illegal wagering contract, the district court expressly declined to consider Jackson’s laches argument. Because there is no ruling on the laches question from the district court, we decline to affirm the judgment entered in favor of Jackson on this alternative ground, or otherwise to consider the laches issue in this appeal. Instead, we REVERSE and VACATE the judgment entered by the district court in this case and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination as to whether Crum’s claim to benefits under the policy is barred by laches. USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 6 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 7 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 8 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 9 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 10 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 11 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 12 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 13 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 14 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 15 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 16 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 17 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 18 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 19 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 20 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 21 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 22 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 23 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 24 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 25 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 26 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 27 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 28 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 29 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 30 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 31 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 32 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 33 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 34 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 35 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 36 of 37 USCA11 Case: 20-11280 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 37 of 37
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.
