Brighthouse Life Insurance Company v. Lawrence Rudolph

Brighthouse Life Insurance Co. v. Rudolph · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · March 25, 2026 · No. CV-24-00870-PHX-DJH

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted Brighthouse Life Insurance Company’s unopposed motion for attorney fees following default judgment against Lawrence Rudolph in a dispute concerning the validity of a life insurance policy. The Court awarded $60,605.00 in attorney fees and $588.30 in recoverable expenses, while denying brokerage commission and investigative costs. The Clerk was directed to terminate the action.

Holdings

  1. Brighthouse was eligible for and entitled to attorneys' fees because it was the successful party in an action arising out of a contract, and the applicable Warner factors supported an award.
  2. Brighthouse was entitled to $60,605 in reasonable attorneys' fees after the court applied the lodestar method and excluded clerical time.
  3. Brighthouse could recover $588.30 in taxable expenses, consisting of mandatory filing fees and service-of-process expenses, but could not recover delivery charges, trial-proceedings transcripts, brokerage commission costs, or investigative costs.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Brighthouse was eligible and entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).
  2. Whether the requested attorneys' fees were reasonable under the lodestar method and Local Rule 54.2.
  3. Whether Brighthouse could recover its claimed expenses, brokerage commission costs, and investigative costs as taxable costs under Arizona law.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (23)

  • Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Murrey & Son's Co. Inc., 824 F.2d 740, 744 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Roddy v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 184 Ariz. 625, 627, 911 P.2d 631, 633 (Ct. App. 1996)(followed)
  • In re Nelson, 207 Ariz. 318, 322, 86 P.3d 374, 378 (2004)(followed)
  • Rindlisbacher v. Steinway & Sons Inc., 2021 WL 2434207, at *4-*12 (D. Ariz. May 26, 2021)(followed)
  • Rindlisbacher v. Steinway, Inc., No. 20-17331, 2021 WL 6067258 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021)(followed)
  • Harris v. Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct., 631 F.3d 963, 974 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 570, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (1985)(followed)
  • Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., 229 Ariz. 277, 282, 274 P.3d 1211, 1216 (Ct. App. 2012)(followed)
  • Kaufman v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 2019 WL 2084460, at *8-*12 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2019)(followed)
  • Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 94 (1989)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…