Court Opinion

ID: 9910491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 19:00:38.024117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:06.630474
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30513    Document: 00517003264       Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/15/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                              ____________                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                No. 23-30513
                                                                       FILED
                                                                December 15, 2023
                              ____________
                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                       Clerk
   Pruco Life Insurance Company,

                                                         Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                    versus

   Eugene Francis Dwyer, as Independent Co-Administrator of the
   Succession of Matthew David Dwyer; Ryan Martin
   Dwyer, as Independent Co-Administrator of the Succession of
   Matthew David Dwyer,

                                                    Defendants—Appellants,

                                    versus

   Sarah R. Robert,

                                                        Defendant—Appellee.

                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:22-CV-87
                 ______________________________
Case: 23-30513         Document: 00517003264             Page: 2      Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                          No. 23-30513

   Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          This appeal presents a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance
   policy. The case was decided on summary judgment—the district court
   awarded the proceeds to the policy’s beneficiary, the decedent’s ex-fiancée.
   The decedent’s estate is not happy. The estate contends that the decedent
   had earmarked the proceeds for other purposes. For the following reasons,
   we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
                                                I.
          In September 2017, Matthew Dwyer bought a $750,000.00 life
   insurance policy from Pruco Life Insurance Company. He listed his then-
   fiancée Sarah Robert as the policy’s primary and sole beneficiary. Dwyer and
   Robert ultimately broke their engagement; Robert, however, remained the
   policy beneficiary at the time of Dwyer’s death on June 26, 2020.
          Because Dwyer’s estate and Robert both claimed the life insurance
   proceeds, Pruco filed this interpleader suit to determine the correct recipient.
   On May 2, 2023, Robert moved for summary judgment on her claim. The
   district court granted her summary judgment, finding that she is the legal
   beneficiary of the proceeds. Dwyer’s estate appeals.
                                               II.
          Summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to
   any material fact.” FED R. CIV. P. 56(a). The Fifth Circuit reviews the
   district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Clift v. Clift, 210 F.3d
   268, at 269–70 (5th Cir. 2000).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 23-30513      Document: 00517003264           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                     No. 23-30513

                                         III.
          On appeal, Dwyer’s estate argues that the district court erred because:
   (1) the absurd consequences of enforcing the insurance contact as written
   permitted the review of parol evidence; (2) Dwyer intended for the life
   insurance proceeds to support Dwyer’s family restaurant, not Robert; and,
   alternatively, (3) the designating Robert as Dwyer’s beneficiary was a gift
   given in contemplation of a marriage that did not occur.
          In Louisiana, a life insurance policy is sui generis, which means that
   insurance proceeds exist outside “the civilian principles enunciated by
   [Louisiana’s] Civil Code.” Fowler v. Fowler, 861 So. 2d 181, 183 (La. 2003).
   “Thus, insurance proceeds are protected from the heirs and legatees of the
   insured, creditors of the insured, claims for collation, actions for reduction,
   and form of donations inter vivos.” Id. (collected cases omitted). When
   made payable to a named beneficiary other than the decedent’s estate, the
   proceeds “are not considered to be a part of the estate of the [decedent].”
   T.L. James & Co. v. Montgomery, 332 So.2d 834, 847 (La. 1975). As such,
   Louisiana courts turn to the insurance policies themselves and relevant
   portions of the Insurance Code to adjudicate policy disputes. Fowler, 861 So.
   2d at 185.
          If an insurance policy is clear, unambiguous, and does not lead to
   absurd consequences, it will be enforced as written without further
   investigation of the parties’ intent. Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So. 2d 119,
   124 (La. 2000); LA. CIV. CODE art. 2046. Additionally, listing the present
   relationship between the policy holder and the beneficiary after that
   beneficiary’s name in the policy does not hint “any intent to make one other
   than the named person the beneficiary.” S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Cox,
   247 So. 3d 999, 1004 (La. Ct. App. 2018), writ denied, 252 So. 3d 486 (La.
   2018). Further, absurdity is a high bar; executing an insurance policy as it is
   written is not absurd, even if doing so benefits a former romantic partner. Id.;

                                          3
Case: 23-30513      Document: 00517003264           Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                     No. 23-30513

   see also ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, Reading Law: The
   Interpretation of Legal Texts 234-39 (2012).
          Here, in the insurance contract, Dwyer named Robert, his then-
   fiancée, as the primary and sole beneficiary of his life insurance proceeds.
   The agreement is clear and unambiguous.            Doerr, 774 So. 2d at 124.
   Enforcing the policy as written, although to the benefit of his former fiancée,
   will not lead to absurd results: it will simply execute the contract as written.
   Cox, 247 So. 3d at 1004. Further, Dwyer listing Robert as his fiancée in the
   policy merely identified their relationship at the time of the policy’s
   execution.    Id.    The district court, therefore, correctly limited its
   interpretation to the policy itself instead of unnecessarily reviewing
   extraneous evidence regarding Dwyer’s intent. LA. CIV. CODE art. 2046.
   Additionally, because insurance proceeds are not subject to the laws of
   donation inter vivos, the proceeds did not serve as a gift made in
   contemplation of marriage. Fowler, 861 So. 2d at 184. As such, the judgment
   of district court is properly affirmed.
                                         IV.
          For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the district court is,
   therefore,
                                                                  AFFIRMED.

                                             4