Atlin v. Security-Connecticut Life Insurance Co.

788 F.2d 139 (3d Cir. 1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · April 14, 1986 · No. No. 85-1463

Summary

The Third Circuit held that, under Pennsylvania law, a life insurer owes prejudgment interest as a matter of right on policy proceeds from the date proof of death is received until the proceeds are deposited into court in an interpleader action. The court rejected an exception based on the insurer's lack of unreasonable delay and directed entry of judgment for interest at the statutory six percent rate, crediting interest already paid.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Writing for the Court
Weis, Circuit Judge; Sloviter, Circuit Judge; Ziegler, District Judge, sitting by designation
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
April 14, 1986
Docket number
No. 85-1463
Procedural posture
Appeal from summary judgment denying the plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest in a diversity action involving an interpleaded life-insurance fund.
Standard of review
De novo review of the grant of summary judgment and the interpretation and application of Pennsylvania substantive law.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Parties
Lillian Atlin v. Security-Connecticut Life Insurance Co.
Disposition
reversed

Topics

life insurance litigationinterpleaderprejudgment interestduty to indemnifyappellate procedure

Practice areas

insurancecontractsremediescivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Under Pennsylvania law, is a life-insurance beneficiary entitled as a matter of right to prejudgment interest on policy proceeds from the date proof of death is received until the proceeds are deposited into court in an interpleader action?
  2. Does the insurer's prompt and reasonable institution of an interpleader action eliminate or limit the beneficiary's entitlement to prejudgment interest?
  3. Does interest continue to accrue against the stakeholder after the disputed proceeds are deposited into the court registry?

Holdings

  1. Under Pennsylvania law, prejudgment interest on a definite contractual sum is recoverable as a matter of legal right from the date the amount becomes payable, because interest compensates for the loss of use of the money.
  2. Institution of an interpleader action in response to competing claims does not defeat the claimant's entitlement to prejudgment interest for the period before the proceeds are deposited into court.
  3. Interest accrued at Pennsylvania's statutory legal rate of six percent from June 7, 1984, the date Security received proof of death, until September 11, 1984, when the proceeds were deposited into court, with credit for interest already paid.

Key quotations

We conclude that under Pennsylvania law interest is payable as a matter of right for loss of use of the principal. (¶1)
Ultimately, the one entitled to the principal sum has been deprived of its use and must be compensated for that loss under state law. (¶18)
We hold, therefore, that the obligation to pay interest at the statutory rate of six percent began on that date, June 7, 1984. (¶22)

Factual background

Melvin Atlin, a Pennsylvania resident, died on May 15, 1984, while insured under a Security-Connecticut life-insurance policy naming his widow, Lillian Atlin, as primary beneficiary. Security received proof of death on June 7, 1984, and the policy provided that the proceeds were payable upon receipt of that proof. After National Paragon asserted a competing claim, Security filed an interpleader counterclaim and deposited the policy proceeds into the court registry on September 11, 1984, paying interest at 3.5 percent from receipt of the proof of death. Atlin sought interest at the Pennsylvania legal rate for the period before the deposit.

Procedural history

The district court granted summary judgment for Security-Connecticut on the plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest and dismissed the insurer from the suit. After a nonjury trial on the competing claims to the policy proceeds, the district court entered judgment for Atlin on the proceeds claim. Atlin appealed the rulings concerning interest and discovery; only the interest issue was decided on appeal.

Remand instructions

The court directed entry of judgment for the outstanding interest. The parties were instructed to submit within ten days a calculation of six-percent interest from June 7, 1984, to September 11, 1984, less interest already paid.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…