UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-21685-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

XAVIER JOHNSON, et al., 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

AND MOTION TO INTERPLEAD

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Primerica Life Insurance Company’s 

(“Primerica”) Motion to Interplead Benefit into Registry of the Court, for Injunction, Dismissal, 

and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, ECF No. [19] (“Motion to Interplead”), and Primerica’s Motion 

for Default Final Judgment Against Defendant Xavier Johnson, ECF No. [20] (“Motion for Default 

Judgment”). The Court has carefully reviewed the motions, the record in this case, the applicable 

law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are granted. 

I. BACKGROUND 

This is an action for interpleader of the life insurance proceeds to Primerica Life Insurance 

Company Policy Number xx-xxxx8558 (the “Policy”), insuring the life of Andrea Lloyd (“Ms. 

Lloyd”). ECF No. [1] at 2. On December 8, 2021, Ms. Lloyd was found deceased by stab wounds 

in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Id. Defendant Xavier Johnson awaits trial for her murder in State 

v. Johnson, Case No. F-21-021165 in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for MiamiDade County. Id. at 2-3. 

Case 1:22-cv-21685-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-21685-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

At the time of Ms. Lloyd’s death, Xavier Johnson was the primary beneficiary listed on her 

Primerica life policy. Id. at 2. Defendant Arnold Lloyd, Ms. Lloyd’s father, is the contingent 

beneficiary. Id. The benefit at the time of Ms. Lloyd’s death was $165,000.00. Id.

On July 5, 2022, Arnold Lloyd filed an Answer to Primerica’s Complaint and a 

Counterclaim against Xavier Johnson. ECF No. [11]. Xavier Johnson, who is currently awaiting 

trial for Ms. Lloyd’s murder in State Court, has not made an appearance in this case. On July 18, 

2022, the Clerk of Court entered default against him. ECF No. [16].

In its Motion to Interplead, Primerica moves to interplead the benefit of the Policy into the 

registry of the Court, after deducting its attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. [19]. Primerica also 

seeks dismissal from this case and an injunction against further legal action against it arising from 

Ms. Lloyd’s Policy and the $165,000.00 benefit. Id. at 6. Arnold Lloyd is unopposed to Primerica’s 

requests. Id. at 19. Given the Clerk’s entry of default against Xavier Johnson, Primerica seeks a 

default final judgment against him. ECF No. [20] at 8.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]ersons with claims that 

may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to 

interplead.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1). “Interpleader is designed to protect stakeholders from 

harassment in the face of multiple claims against the same fund, and to relieve the stakeholder 

from assessing which claim, among many, has merit.” Orseck, P.A. v. Servicios Legales De 

Mesoamerica S. De R.L., 699 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2010).

An interpleader action is normally conducted in two stages. “In the first stage, the district 

court decides whether the requirements for a rule or statutory interpleader action have been met 

by determining if there is a single fund at issue and whether there are adverse claimants to that 

Case 1:22-cv-21685-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-21685-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

fund.” Id. at 1349. At this stage, a district court may also determine whether the stakeholder is 

disinterested, “and, if so, discharge it from liability and dismiss it from the action.” Id.; see id. at 

1359 (“This practice is particularly common in cases involving competing claims to life insurance 

proceeds[.]” (citing cases in which courts dismissed a disinterested interpleader stakeholder)). 

“The second stage of interpleader involves the determination of the respective rights of the 

claimants to the stake.” Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Tien, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1284 (S.D. Fla 2007). 

Arnold Lloyd, the only Defendant to have answered Primerica’s Complaint, consents to 

Primerica’s Motion to Interplead. ECF No. [19] at 19. Given the Clerk’s entry of default against 

Xavier Johnson, Xavier Johnson is deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded factual allegations 

within Primerica’s Complaint. Tyco Fire & Sec., LLC v. Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 

2007). According to those allegations, the requirements for interpleader under Rule 22 are met.

There is a single fund at issue: the $165,000.00 Benefit under Ms. Lloyd’s Policy. Xavier 

Johnson and Arnold Lloyd are adverse claimants as the primary and contingent beneficiary, 

respectively. Which of those two claimants will receive the benefit depends on whether Xavier 

Johnson “unlawfully and intentionally kill[ed]” Ms. Lloyd within the meaning of Florida Statute 

§ 732.802(3). Regardless of that determination, Primerica has no claim to the benefit, so it is a 

disinterested party that is entitled to dismissal. Orseck, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 1359 

Primerica is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs for its role in initiating this proceeding. 

“[A]lthough the award of the stakeholder’s costs and attorney’s fees is discretionary with the court, 

such an award is common where the stakeholder has acted in good faith.” Katsaris v. United States, 

684 F.2d 758, 763 (11th Cir. 1982). Here, Primerica seeks an award of $7,500.00 in fees and 

$894.50 in costs, for a total of $8,394.50. ECF No. [19] at 5. Defendant Arnold Lloyd agrees to 

that award. Id. Having reviewed the Declaration of Megan A. McNamara and the Bill of Costs 

Case 1:22-cv-21685-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-21685-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

attached thereto, ECF No. [19-1], the Court concludes that the requested $8,394.50 award is 

reasonable and appropriate in this case.

Lastly, Primerica is entitled to an injunction. “The purpose of an interpleader action is to 

protect a party from the possibility of defending multiple claims to a limited fund.” Unicare Life 

& Health Ins. Co. v. Galvan, No. 11-cv-61, 2011 WL 6258845, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 15, 2011) 

(citing Matter of Bohart, 743 F.2d 313, 324 (5th Cir. 1984)). “To this end the interpleader statutes 

and rules are liberally construed to protect the stakeholder from the expense of defending twice, 

as well as to protect him from double liability.” Bohart, 743 F.2d at 325 (quotation marks omitted).

“It is a generally accepted principle that a disinterested stakeholder filing an action in interpleader 

may be dismissed from the case, discharged from further liability, and, in the court's discretion, 

awarded attorneys' fees and costs.” Kurland v. United States, 919 F. Supp. 419, 421 (M.D. Fla. 

1996) (citing Prudential Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 781 F.2d 1494 (11th Cir. 1986)). Here, to protect 

Primerica from additional litigation related to the benefit under Ms. Lloyd’s policy, the Court 

agrees that an injunction is appropriate. That injunction will take effect upon the Court’s receipt 

of the benefit.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Primerica’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. [20], is GRANTED. Judgment is 

entered against Defendant Xavier Johnson in favor of Primerica on its claim for 

interpleader.

2. Primerica’s Motion to Interplead, ECF No. [19], is GRANTED.

3. Primerica is awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this matter in 

the amount of $8,394.50. Primerica shall deduct that amount from the Benefit prior to 

Case 1:22-cv-21685-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-21685-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

depositing the Deposit Amount into the Registry of the Court.

4. Primerica shall deposit $156,605.50 into the Registry of this Court (the “Deposit 

Amount”). This amount represents the life insurance proceeds (the “Benefit”) of 

$165,000.00 under Primerica Life Insurance Company Policy Number xx-xxxx8558, 

minus the attorneys’ fees and costs of $8,394.50. Primerica shall thereafter file a Notice 

with the Court that the Deposit Amount is in the Registry of this Court.

5. Upon the Court’s receipt of the Deposit Amount, Primerica will be discharged from 

any and all liability or responsibility concerning the Benefit. The Defendants, and their 

agents and attorneys, will be enjoined from instituting, prosecuting, or maintaining any 

action against Primerica, its agents, employees and servants, in connection with the 

Benefit.

6. Upon the Court’s receipt of the Notice of the Deposit Amount, Primerica will be 

dismissed from this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 10, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Xavier Johnson

Jail Number 210160724

c/o Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center

7000 Northwest 41st Street

Miami, FL 33166

Case 1:22-cv-21685-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2022 Page 5 of 5