Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Mowery et al, No. 2:2021cv00168 - Document 38 (S.D. Ohio 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 32 Motion for Leave to Interplead Funds and for Discharge and Dismissal of Interpleader Plaintiff MetLife; and granting 34 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. MetLife is ORDERED to pay to Ms. Ogershok the remaining $52,877.26 in Plan benefits pursuant to policy #1510100-G issued on the life of Brian Ogershok. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 8/16/2022. (daf)

Download PDF

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Mowery et al Doc. 38 Case: 2:21-cv-00168-CMV Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/16/22 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 317 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Civil Action 2:21-cv-168 Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura v. PATRICIA MOWERY, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) commenced this action in interpleader against Defendants Patricia Mowery and Kimberly Ogershok, two potential beneficiaries of a life insurance plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”), to determine to whom life insurance benefits should be paid. This matter, in which the non-defaulting parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), is before the Court on Defendant Kimberly Ogershok’s Motion to Enter Judgment in Her Favor (ECF No. 34) and MetLife’s Motion for Leave to Interplead Funds (ECF No. 32). For the following reasons, Ms. Ogershok’s Motion to Enter Judgment in Her Favor (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED and MetLife’s Motion for Leave to Interplead Funds (ECF No. 32) is DENIED AS MOOT. By way of background, Brian Ogershok was employed by L Brands, Inc. (“L Brands”), and participated in the L Brands, Inc. Health and Welfare Benefits Plan (the “Plan”), which is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA and funded by a group life insurance policy, Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:21-cv-00168-CMV Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/16/22 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 318 #1510100-G, issued by MetLife. (Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) Mr. Ogershok died on April 16, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Mr. Ogershok was covered for $55,744.00 in Plan benefits, but $2,866.64 was paid to the Hoskin Funeral Home for his funeral expenses, leaving remaining Plan Benefits in the amount of $52,877.36. (Id. at ¶¶ 12–13.) Prior to his death, Mr. Ogershok designated Defendant Patricia Mowery as the beneficiary of his life insurance proceeds, indicating that Ms. Mowery was his “domestic partner.” (Beneficiary Designation, ECF No. 1-5.) However, Mr. Ogershok was still legally married to Defendant Kimberly Ogershok at the time of Mr. Ogershok’s death. (Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.) Mr. Ogershok also named each of his two children with Kimberly Ogershok, Brian Ogershok II and Katrinia Ogershok, as co-equal contingent beneficiaries. (Beneficiary Designation, ECF No. 1-5.) Ms. Ogershok was not designated as a primary or contingent beneficiary at the time of Mr. Ogershok’s death. (Id.) Initially, both Ms. Mowery and Ms. Ogershok claimed the right to receive the remaining $52,877.26 in Plan benefits. But since MetLife commenced this action, Ms. Mowery has failed to respond to the Complaint, and a default judgment was entered against her on September 7, 2021. (ECF No. 23.) In two previous Orders, the Court determined that Ms. Mowery was properly designated as Mr. Ogershok’s beneficiary and that Ms. Ogershok was not entitled to the Plan benefits either by virtue of Ms. Mowery’s default in the litigation or by virtue of Ms. Mowery’s failure to meet the plan definition of “domestic partner.” (See ECF Nos. 26, 30.) In a December 2, 2021 conference, the Court suggested that if Ms. Mowery was not entitled to the funds as a result of her default, the Plan benefits should be paid to Mr. and Ms. Ogershok’s children, whom Mr. Ogershok designated as co-equal contingent beneficiaries. To the Court’s recollection, this result 2 Case: 2:21-cv-00168-CMV Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/16/22 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 319 was unsatisfactory to MetLife because the children had not themselves made claims for the Plan benefits. In the present Motion, Ms. Ogershok attaches a “Waiver of Claim for Insurance Proceeds” signed by each of the children, in which they each “waive any claim [he or she] may have as a contingent beneficiary to the insurance proceeds in favor of [his or her] mother, Kimberly Ogershok.” (Waivers, ECF Nos. 34-1, 34-2.) Ms. Ogershok argues that because the primary beneficiary (Ms. Mowery) is in default, and the contingent beneficiaries (the children) have waived their interests in the Plan benefits, that MetLife should pay the Plan Benefits to Ms. Ogershok under the Plan provisions that require benefits be paid to the surviving spouse in the event that no valid beneficiary designation was in effect at the time of the Plan participant’s death. (Mot. 3–4, ECF No. 34.) In the meantime, MetLife filed a Motion for Leave to Interplead Funds on July 13, 2022. (ECF No. 32.) Therein, MetLife seeks leave to deposit the Plan benefits with the Court and to thereupon be dismissed from this action with prejudice. (Id.) The Court therefore understands MetLife to take no position on Ms. Ogershok’s Motion. The Court finds that, as explained in its previous opinions, Mr. Ogershok validly designated Ms. Mowery as his primary beneficiary. Ms. Mowery’s default in this litigation does not retroactively render Mr. Ogershok’s designation invalid, and therefore her default does not trigger the Plan provisions requiring payment to the Plan participant’s surviving spouse in the event no beneficiary was validly designated. However, Ms. Mowery’s default does prevent the Court from entering judgment in Ms. Mowery’s favor. The Court therefore finds that Mr. and Ms. Ogershok’s children, who were designated as co-equal contingent beneficiaries, are entitled to the Plan benefits. But given the children’s waivers of their interest in the Plan benefits in favor 3 Case: 2:21-cv-00168-CMV Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/16/22 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 320 of their mother, Ms. Ogershok, the Court finds payment of the Plan benefits to Ms. Ogershok to be appropriate. Accordingly, Ms. Ogershok’s Motion (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED. MetLife is ORDERED to pay to Ms. Ogershok the remaining $52,877.26 in Plan benefits pursuant to policy #1510100-G issued on the life of Brian Ogershok. Accordingly, MetLife’s Motion for Leave to Interplead Funds (ECF No. 32) is DENIED AS MOOT. This action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in Ms. Mowery’s favor and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

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.