____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE § 

COMPANY, § 

§ 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

v. § C.A. NO.

§

ANGELA PAWLIK AND CANDACE § 

GOLDEN WRIGHT AS INDEPENDENT § 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF § 

STEPHEN PAWLIK, § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER 

Plaintiff Primerica Life Insurance Company (“Primerica”) files this Complaint for 

Interpleader, and states: 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff. Primerica is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of

business in Duluth, Georgia. Primerica is a citizen of Tennessee and Georgia within the 

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). 

2. Defendant Angela Pawlik. Defendant and claimant Angela Pawlik

(“Angela”) is an individual and citizen of Texas, and currently resides at 1705 E. Crescent 

Drive, Odessa, Texas 79761. 

3. Defendant Candace Golden Wright as Independent Administrator of

the Estate of Stephen Pawlik. Defendant and claimant Candace Golden Wright 

(“Candace”) is the Independent Administrator of the Estate of Stephen Pawlik (the 

7:20-cv-00063

Case 7:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 6
____________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 2

“Estate”), is an individual and citizen of Texas, and currently resides at 1646 Doe Lane, 

Odessa, Texas 79762.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as there is 

complete diversity between Primerica, on the one hand, and Angela and Candace 

(collectively, the “Defendants”), on the other hand, and the amount in controversy exceeds 

the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

5. Venue. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as at least one 

of the Defendants resides in this district and all Defendants reside in this state.

OPERATIVE FACTS

6. The Policy. Primerica issued its policy no. 0467154362 (the “Policy”) to 

Angela, under which she was provided life insurance coverage. The Policy contained a 

Spouse Term Insurance Rider (the “Spouse Rider”) under which Angela’s then-husband, 

Stephen Pawlik (“Stephen”), was initially provided life insurance coverage in the amount 

of $500,000.00. Pursuant to the terms of the Spouse Rider, Angela was the primary 

beneficiary under the Spouse Rider. 

7. The Policy Change Application. On April 17, 2008, Angela completed a 

Policy Change Application which, among other things, consolidated Stephen’s life 

insurance coverage from another Primerica policy into the Spouse Rider.

8. The Policy is Reissued. Based on the April 17, 2008 Policy Change 

Application, Primerica reissued the Policy, which now provided Stephen life insurance 

Case 7:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 6
____________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 3

coverage in the amount of $1,000,000.00 under the Spouse Rider (the “Spouse Rider 

Proceeds”).

9. The Divorce. Although Primerica did not learn about it until after Stephen 

died, on October 27, 2014, Angela and Stephen were divorced. Section 9.301 of the Texas 

Family Code provides that:

(a) If a decree of divorce or annulment is rendered 

after an insured has designated the insured’s spouse as a 

beneficiary under a life insurance policy in force at the time of 

rendition, a provision in the policy in favor of the insured’s 

former spouse is not effective unless:

(1) the decree designates the insured’s former 

spouse as the beneficiary;

(2) the insured re-designates the former 

spouse as the beneficiary after rendition of the decree; 

or

(3) the former spouse is designated to receive 

the proceeds in trust for, on behalf of, or for the benefit 

of a child or a dependent of either former spouse.

(b) If a designation is not effective under Subsection 

(a), the proceeds of the policy are payable to the named 

alternative beneficiary or, if there is not a named alternative 

beneficiary, to the estate of the insured.

10. The Final Decree of Divorce. The Final Decree of Divorce between Angela 

and Stephen does not specifically identify the Policy or Spouse Rider, but does state that 

Stephen is awarded as his sole and separate property “any and all policies of life insurance 

(including cash values) insuring the life of [Stephen].”

Case 7:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 6
____________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 4

11. Stephen Attempts to Convert the Spouse Rider. During April 2016, 

Stephen applied to convert the Spouse Rider to a separate insurance policy. However, 

Primerica advised him that it could not process the conversion unless Angela, as the 

Policy’s owner, agreed to delete the Spouse Rider. Primerica never received an application 

signed by Angela agreeing to delete the Spouse Rider.

12. Angela Designates Herself as the Beneficiary of the Spouse Rider. On 

May 3, 2016, Angela completed a Multipurpose Change Form where, among other things, 

she re-designated her as the primary beneficiary under the Spouse Rider.

13. Stephen’s Death. Stephen died on January 10, 2020. 

14. Primerica’s Possible Double or Multiple Liability. By letter dated 

February 20, 2020, the Estate’s counsel advised Primerica of its contention that Angela 

was disqualified from receiving the Spouse Rider Proceeds and claimed them on behalf of 

the Estate. On March 3, 2020, Angela advised Primerica that she was claiming the Spouse 

Rider Proceeds as the designated beneficiary. Primerica seeks resolution of conflicting

claims in good faith. Primerica is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability. 

Primerica has no interest whatsoever in the Spouse Rider Proceeds other than fulfilling its 

contractual obligation to pay the sums due to the appropriate party. Accordingly, Primerica 

has no independent liability to any of the Defendants and is a disinterested stakeholder in 

this case.

15. Retention of Counsel. As a result of the present controversy, Primerica had 

to retain the undersigned counsel and has agreed to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of Court. 

Case 7:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 03/12/20 Page 4 of 6
____________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 5

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

16. Interpleader. Primerica has a good faith doubt as to whom the Spouse Rider 

Proceeds are owed. Primerica admits its obligation to pay the Spouse Rider Proceeds, but 

cannot pay those Spouse Rider Proceeds in the face of competing claims without subjecting 

itself to double or multiple liability. Primerica is a disinterested stakeholder with respect 

to the Spouse Rider Proceeds and claims no beneficial interest therein, except for attorneys’ 

fees and costs incurred in connection with this interpleader. Furthermore, Primerica has 

no independent liability to any claimant in this interpleader. Primerica shall, upon the 

granting of its interpleader, pay into the Registry of the Court the Spouse Rider Proceeds, 

together with any legal interest due thereon through the date of the interpleader. 

17. Attorneys’ Fees. Primerica is entitled to its reasonable and necessary 

attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with its claim for interpleader.

PRAYER

18. Relief Requested. Primerica respectfully requests the following relief:

a. That Defendants be served with process and be required to answer in 

the time and manner prescribed by law;

b. That the Court grant the interpleader and accept the Spouse Rider 

Proceeds into its Registry;

c. That each of the Defendants be ordered to interplead and settle among 

themselves their rights and claims for the Spouse Rider Proceeds;

d. That upon final hearing, the Defendants, for themselves, their heirs, 

legal representatives, successors, and assigns, and all other persons 

claiming by, through, or under them, be permanently enjoined and 

restrained from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any state 

or United States Court against Primerica and its agents and

Case 7:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 03/12/20 Page 5 of 6
____________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 6

representatives with respect to the Spouse Rider and Spouse Rider 

Proceeds; 

e. That Primerica be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of 

Court in connection with this interpleader;

f. That Primerica, its agents and representatives be fully and finally 

discharged from further liability to the Defendants; and

g. That the Court grant Primerica all such other and further relief, both 

general and special, at law or in equity, to which it may show itself 

justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Bill E. Davidoff

Bill E. Davidoff

State Bar No. 00790565

bill.davidoff@figdav.com

Attorney-in-Charge

FIGARI + DAVENPORT, LLP

901 Main Street, Suite 3400

Dallas, TX 75202-3796

Tel: 214.939.2000

Fax: 214.939.2090

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Case 7:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 03/12/20 Page 6 of 6