Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-6842.
October 21, 2004
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
The question in this case is whether a father may benefit from an adult son's accidental death insurance even though the father abandoned the son as a child. Plaintiff Allstate Insurance filed a complaint for interpleader against Defendants Carol Ramich ("Ramich") and Klaus Limberg ("Limberg"), parents of Steven K. Limberg, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Ramich argues Pennsylvania law and policy of unjust enrichment bar Limberg from being their deceased son's beneficiary. Limberg filed a motion to dismiss Ramich's counter-claim, and for the reasons discussed below, this Court grants Limberg's motion to dismiss.
Allstate was dismissed from this action by this Court's Order of July 30, 2004.
FACTS
Steven Limberg bought a $125,000 accidental death life insurance policy on January 6, 1997. On November 8, 2001, Steven Limberg died in an automobile accident at the age of 33. Steven Limberg's parents became his beneficiaries because he failed to name a beneficiary and died intestate. Limberg, who lives in Germany and has been divorced from Ramich since 1970, submitted a Beneficiary's Statement for Accidental Death Benefits to Allstate.
Steven Limberg's birthdate was April 26, 1968.
The policy read:
Unless you tell us otherwise, the standard beneficiary designation shown below is in effect. Accidental death benefits will be paid in the following order:
At your death, to your spouse, if living; otherwise equally to your living children, including stepchildren and adopted children; if any; otherwise equally to your living parents; otherwise to your estate. . . .
Ramich objected to Limberg's claim, arguing 20 Pa C.S. § 2106(b)(1) requires Limberg to have supported decedent when he was a child in order to receive a share of the insurance policy. Ramich argued that because Limberg abandoned his son as a child, he should receive nothing, and instead, Ramich should receive the entire $125,000. Ramich also argues the doctrines of abandonment, unclean hands and unjust enrichment prevent Limberg from being decedent's beneficiary. Limberg claims section 2106(b)(1) only applies to minor and dependent decedents, not adult decedents, such as his son. Limberg also argues the insurance policy is enforceable under Pennsylvania contract law.
The statute provides (in pertinent part):
Any parent who, for one year or upwards previous to the death of the parent's minor or dependent child has:
1) failed to perform the duty to support the minor or dependent child or who, for one year, has deserted the minor or dependent child . . . shall have no right or interest under this chapter in the real or personal estate of the minor or dependent child.
The determination under paragraph (1) shall be made by the court after considering the quality, nature and extent of the parents contact with the child and the physical, emotional and financial support provided to the child.20 Pa. C.S. § 2106(b)(1) (2004) (emphasis added).
DISCUSSION
A court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when no relief could be granted under any set of proven facts. Ransom v. Marrazzo, 848 F.2d 398, 401 (3d Cir. 1988). A court grants a motion to dismiss if plaintiff fails to state a claim as a matter of law because the alleged facts are legally insufficient to support the claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). When considering a Motion under Rule 12(b)(6) this Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts. Breyer v. Meissner, 214 F.3d 416, 419 (3d Cir. 2000).
Limberg's argument based on 20 Pa C.S. § 2106(b)(1) prevails because the statute only applies to minor or dependent decedents, not adults. Under the statute Ramich must establish the decedent was a minor or dependent child. 20 Pa C.S. § 2106 (b)(1) ; In ReEstate of Teaschenko, 574 A.2d 649, 651 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1990) (holding the statute requires the decedent be a minor or dependent child, a duty of support to the decedent, and a willful failure to support for at least a year prior to decedent's death). Steven Limberg died at the age of 33 and was neither a minor nor a dependent. Ramich cannot prove the first element and has, therefore, failed to state a claim. This Court grants Limberg's motion to dismiss.
The second step of Limberg's argument rests on unambiguous policy language, which Pennsylvania law enforces. "When the contract's language is clear and unambiguous, the court will enforce that language." Medical Protective Co. v. Watkins, 198 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1999). The law presumes persons who sign papers do so with a full knowledge of their contents; "otherwise most contracts would not be worth the paper they are written on." In re Birkbeck's Estate, 215 Pa. 323, 64 A. 536 (1906); see also Carmana Designs Ltd. v. North American Van Lines Inc., 943 F.2d 316, 321 (3d Cir. 1991).
Steven Limberg had the opportunity to name other beneficiaries and the policy warned him of the policy's default beneficiaries. The language is unambiguous and will be enforced. Since Ramich has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, this Court grants Limberg's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Accordingly, we enter the following:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2004, Defendant Limberg's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, the trial date is VACATED, and it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shall disburse and pay the monies out of the interpleaded proceeds deposited with the Clerk in this civil action after deducting the cost of translations. The case shall be marked as CLOSED for statistical purposes.