UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Unum Life Insurance Company of America v. Case No. 20-cv-619-SM Opinion No. 2023 DNH 030 LuAnn Allard and Tiffany Allard

O R D E R

Unum Life Insurance Company (“Unum”) brought this interpleader action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [“ERISA”], asking the court to determine which claimant, LuAnn Allard or Tiffany Allard, was entitled to life insurance benefits following the death of the plan beneficiary, Steven Allard. Neither LuAnn nor Tiffany Allard filed an appearance in the case, and default was entered against both of them. Doc. no. 13. Unum deposited the insurance benefits payable under the policy into the court’s registry (approximately $40,000) and was released from any further obligations under its insurance contract. ^[1]

Almost two years later, LuAnn Allard filed a motion asking for release of the insurance benefits to her. Doc. no. 18. In response, the court lifted the default entered against LuAnn his spouse at the time of his death. Steven did not complete a beneficiary change form after the divorce to remove LuAnn as the beneficiary, nor did he complete a beneficiary change form after his marriage to Tiffany.

Both LuAnn Allard and Tiffany Allard filed claims with Unum for Steven’s life insurance benefits under the Group Policy. When the complaint was filed, the amount of the death benefits was approximately $40,000.00, and Unum deposited $40,035.75 in the court’s registry.

LuAnn’s Motion On August 3, 2022, LuAnn filed a form motion in which she states that she is requesting allocation of the life insurance benefits to her because she is the named beneficiary of record. Her return address was given as 977 Daniel Webster Highway in Woodstock, New Hampshire, and that is the only address the court has for LuAnn. That filing is the only contact LuAnn has had with the court in this case.

Tiffany’s Motion Tiffany filed a motion to determine the beneficiary on December 31, 2022. Tiffany states in her motion that she and Steven went to the Carpenters Union Benefits Fund Office in June of 2016 to change the beneficiary status on his benefits plans. Doc. no. 22, at 1. They thought that the documents they signed included the life insurance. Tiffany further states that previously, after Steven and LuAnn were separated in 2011, Steven intended to change the life insurance beneficiaries from LuAnn to his children and signed a document for that purpose. Steven, however, never submitted the signed document. Steven and LuAnn’s children lived with Tiffany and Steven beginning in January of 2018, and, after Steven’s death, Tiffany was awarded physical custody of the children but shared guardianship with LuAnn.

When notified of the life insurance benefits, Tiffany proposed to LuAnn that they share the benefits so that LuAnn could find housing and Tiffany could use the money to care for the children, particularly because LuAnn had not complied with her court-ordered child support payments. LuAnn reportedly told Tiffany that she could have the insurance benefits but had no further communication with Tiffany on the matter. The children have now reached the age of majority, eighteen, and are in trade school after high school.

beneficiary. In her motion, Tiffany seeks the life insurance benefits as Steven’s spouse at the time of his death.

looking exclusively to plan documents to determine benefits eligibility--is known as “the plan documents rule.” Id. at 303; Ellis v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 958 F.3d 1271, 1287 (10th Cir. 2020); Boyd v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 636 F.3d 138, 140 (4th Cir. 2011). Although Kennedy involved distribution of funds under an ERISA pension benefit plan, the plan documents rule applies with equal authority when determining a beneficiary under an ERISA welfare benefits plan, such as the life insurance policy at issue here. See Estate of Kensinger v. URL Pharma, Inc., 674 F.3d 131, 134 (3d Cir. 2012); Matschiner v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 622 F.3d 885, 888–89 (8th Cir. 2010); Ford v. Freemen, 388 F. Supp. 3d 692, 707 (N.D. Tex. 2019); Martens v. Hogan, No. CV 17-5169 (DWF/DTS), 2018 WL 1865931, at *2 (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2018); Est. of Lutz v. Lutz, No. CV 16-01461, 2017 WL 714032, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2017).

In this case, the plan documents identify LuAnn Allard as the named beneficiary of Steven Allard’s life insurance under the Group Plan. The Group Plan states that the life insurance plan “provides financial protection for your beneficiary(ies) by paying a benefit in the event of your death.” Doc. no. 21-1, at

3. Although the Group Plan provides a means for changing the beneficiary, Steven Allard did not do so. Doc. 21-1, at 10. Under the plan documents rule, the court does not consider what, if any, effect the provision in the Allards’ divorce decree, pertaining to their rights to insurance policies, would have on the beneficiary designation. Therefore, ordinarily, the benefits would be awarded to LuAnn by simple application of a straightforward rule.

Currently the court is utterly unable to communicate with or contact LuAnn. The address LuAnn gave the court is not effective. She has provided no updated address or made any effort to contact the court, despite a court order that she do so. See also LR 83.6(e) (requiring parties to “immediately notify the clerk’s office in writing of any change of address and telephone number”).

order and Local Rule 83.6(e). See Theriault v. Gillen, 2022 WL 13918509, at *1 (D. Me. Oct. 24, 2022) (citing United States v. Guerrero, 302 Fed. App'x 769, 771 (10th Cir. 2008); Lewis v. Hardy, 248 Fed. App'x 589, 593 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Carvel v. Durst, 2014 WL 787829, at *1 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014); Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Inc. v. Defonseca, 1997 WL 102495, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 1997) (“[A] litigant's obligation to promptly inform the Court and the opposing party of an address change is a matter of common sense, not legal sophistication.”).

Doc. no. 21-1, at 10. Although this is an ERISA case, UNUM did not make any administrative decision before filing its interpleader complaint, depositing the funds, and being relieved of its obligations. The parties have not disputed UNUM’s decision to seek resolution by the court rather than the plan administrator, which forfeits any objection to the process. Forcier v. Metropolitan Life Inc. Co., 469 F.3d 178, 183 (1st Cir. 2006).

LuAnn Allard is “disqualified” from obtaining the benefits because her claim has been abandoned and dismissed for failure to prosecute. In this circumstance, the court, standing in the shoes of Unum as plan administrator, may award the benefit to Steven’s estate. Alternatively, the court may make the payment to Steven’s spouse, Tiffany Allard. Based on the circumstances and record presented here, that is the appropriate outcome in this case.

Allard, decedent, that were deposited in the court registry by Unum.

The clerk of court shall pay the amount deposited by Unum, along with any accrued interest, to Tiffany Allard, after the expiration of the time allowed by the applicable rules of civil procedure for the parties to file direct appeals from this order.

The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly, with prejudice, and close the case.