The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. Lutz et al, No. 2:2013cv00335 - Document 35 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 21 Cross-Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. See Opinion and Order for details. The 20 Cross-Claim is dismissed without prejudice to filing an Amended Cross-Claim within twenty-one days of this Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/16/2013. (AAA)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:13-cv-335-FtM-29DNF Cindy Lutz, in her capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gerald Deene Dreher; and Danielle Dreher, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sam P. Dreher, II, Defendants. ___________________________________ Cindy Lutz, in her capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gerald Deene Dreher, Cross-Plaintiff, vs. Danielle Dreher, Individually, Cross-Defendant, ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Cross-Defendant s Motion to Dismiss Crossclaim for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. #21) filed on August 2, 2013. Cross- Plaintiff filed an Opposition (Doc. #34) on October 10, 2013. the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. For I. On April 30, 2013, plaintiff The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (Guardian) filed a Complaint in Interpleader (Doc. #1) against defendants Danielle Dreher, the wife of the decedent Sam P. Dreher II (decedent) and personal representative of his estate, and Cindy Lutz, the sister of decedent and personal representative of their mother, Gerald Deene Dreher s, estate. On August 22, 2013, the parties filed a Stipulation for Interpleader (Doc. #22), in which the parties stipulated that Guardian is entitled to interpleader relief, as it is an innocent stakeholder because it currently holds the sum of money in the amount of $600,000 representing the total death benefits payable under [the] Term Life Insurance Policies. . . . and that the defendants shall proceed among themselves to determine rights and claims to the Disputed Benefits. After Guardian deposited the interpleader funds into the Registry of the Court, the Court issued an Order dismissing the plaintiff with prejudice. (Doc. #28.) On July 12, 2013, defendant Cindy Lutz (Cross-Plaintiff) filed a Crossclaim (Doc. #20) against defendant Danielle Dreher (CrossDefendant) alleging that Cross-Defendant is listed as the primary beneficiary of the life insurance policies, that she is a suspect in the death of decedent, that her boyfriend, Michael J. Minor, Jr. has been formally participated in charged the in decedent s procurement -2- of death, decedent s and death that she and is therefore not entitled to any interest in the life insurance policies pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 732.802. II. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This obligation requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(citation omitted). To survive dismissal, the factual allegations must be plausible and must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Id. at 555. See also Edwards v. Prime Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010). unadorned, This is more than an the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citations omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), but [l]egal conclusions without adequate factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth, Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d Threadbare 1148, 1153 recitals of (11th the Cir. 2011)(citations elements of a cause omitted). of supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. 556 U.S. at 678. action, Iqbal, Factual allegations that are merely consistent -3- with a defendant s plausible. liability fall short of being facially Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, the Court engages in a two-step approach: When there are wellpleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether entitlement to relief. they plausibly give rise to an should be Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. III. Cross-Defendant contends that the Crossclaim dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Crossclaim s allegations do not meet the legal standard for denial of benefits under Florida law. (Doc. #21.) Cross-Plaintiff responds that she has adequately plead a slayer statute action. (Doc. #34.) Fla. Stat. § 732.802 provides in relevant part: (1) A surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under the Florida Probate Code, and the estate of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Property appointed by the will of the decedent to or for the benefit of the killer passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. . . . . (3) A named beneficiary of a bond, life insurance policy, or other contractual arrangement who unlawfully and intentionally kills the principal obligee or the person upon whose life the policy is issued is not entitled to any benefit under the bond, policy, or other contractual arrangement; and it becomes payable as though the killer had predeceased the decedent. -4- A surviving person is not entitled to any benefits under a will or under the Florida Probate Code, if the person unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent. Fla. Stat. § 732.802(1). However, participates in procuring the death is not present in the section pertaining to named beneficiaries of a life insurance policy. 732.802(3). Fla. Stat. § Here, the Crossclaim alleges that Cross-Defendant is the primary beneficiary of each of the life insurance policies. (Doc. #20, ¶ 4.) Therefore, Cross-Plaintiff s allegations that Cross-Defendant participated in the procurement of decedent s death fail to state a claim under Fla. Stat. § 732.802. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Motion to Dismiss Crossclaim for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. #21) is GRANTED and the CrossClaim (Doc. #20) is dismissed without prejudice to filing an Amended Cross-Claim within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of this Opinion and Order. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 16th day of October, 2013. Copies: Counsel of record -5-

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.