MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Primerica Life Insurance Company (“Primerica”) brought this interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. §1335, seeking, among other forms of relief, discharge from all liability in connection with a life-insurance policy (“Policy”) that it issued to Warren A. Jefferson (“Decedent”) in 1995. Following Decedent’s death in 2020, four parties asserted entitlement to all or part of the Policy’s proceeds: Defendant Sandra Ella Williamson; Defendant Tonya Day-Jefferson, Decedent’s ex-wife; Defendant Sharee H. Fitzgerald, Decedent’s daughter; and Defendant Brittany Hubbard, Decedent’s daughter. Williamson moved for summary judgment against the other Defendants, claiming that, as the Policy’s sole beneficiary, she is entitled to all of its proceeds. Day-Jefferson, Fitzgerald, and Hubbard cross-claimed against Williamson for fraud; and then cross-moved for summary judgment against her, claiming that they are entitled to the Policy’s proceeds because Williamson obtained her beneficiary designation through forgery. For the following reasons, the Court denies Williamson’s Motion for Summary Judgment with prejudice and the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to renewal after all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. While a resident of Virginia, Decedent applied for and was issued the Policy with an effective date of February 28, 1995, which provided $150,000 in coverage on his life. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”) 9; Dkt. No. 1-1 (“Compl. Ex. A”). In the original application for the Policy, Decedent designated Day-Jefferson, his then-wife, as sole primary beneficiary of the Policy’s death benefit. Compl. 10. Nearly twenty-three years later, on September 13, 2017, Decedent designated the following individuals as co-primary beneficiaries in the amounts indicated: (a) Day-Jefferson, wife, $100,000; (b) Fitzgerald, daughter, $25,000; and (c) Hubbard, daughter, $25,000. Id. 11; Dkt. No. 1-2 (“Compl. Ex. B”). Day-Jefferson and Decedent divorced in Maryland on July 2, 2018. Id. 12. Primerica received a Multipurpose Change Form dated April 26, 2019, where Decedent appeared to designate Williamson, his “caregiver,” as sole primary beneficiary of the $150,000 death benefit (“Death Benefit”) under the Policy. Id. 13; Dkt. No. 1-3 (“Compl. Ex. C”); see also Dkt. No. 19 (“Related Defendants’ Answer and Cross-Claim”) 13 (denying that the “Multipurpose Change Form was [actually] completed [and signed] by” Decedent). Williamson “help[ed] [Decedent] complete the top portion of the form[.]” Dkt. No. 9 (“ Williamson’s Answer”) 21; Rel. Defs.’ Answer & Cross-cl. 13. Decedent’s ongoing “battle with Multiple Sclerosis” did not “change” his signature from at least September 2017 through February 2020, Rel. Defs.’ Answer & Cross-cl. 58 (citing Wlmsn.’s Answer 20), but Defendants dispute whether Decedent was the one who actually “signed and turned the form into Primerica.” Wlmsn.’s Answer 21; Rel. Defs.’ Answer & Cross-cl. 59. The following year, Decedent died on December 15, 2020. Compl. 14; Dkt. No. 1-4 (“Compl. Ex. D”). As a result of his death, the Death Benefit became due to the beneficiary or beneficiaries entitled to receive it. Compl. 15. By letter dated December 28, 2020, faxed to Primerica the following day, Hubbard contested the validity of the April 26, 2019, Multipurpose Change Form, alleging that the document was fraudulently completed. Id. 16; Dkt. No. 1-5 (“Compl. Ex. E”). A week later, on January 5, 2021, Williamson asserted a claim to the Death Benefit by filling out a Claimant’s Statement Form. Dkt. No. 1-6 (“Compl. Ex. F”). She indicated therein to Primerica that (1) she was Decedent’s “fiancée,” and that (2) non-party Stephen Williamson was his “son.” Id. Day-Jefferson, Fitzgerald, and Hubbard dispute both assertions. Rel. Defs.’ Answer & Cross-cl.
64, 70. More than a month later, on February 19, 2021, Day-Jefferson and Fitzgerald emailed Primerica to contest the validity of the designation of Williamson as sole beneficiary, alleging that the document and designation therein were fraudulent. Compl. 18; Dkt. No. 1-7 (“Compl. Ex. G”); Dkt. No. 19-4 (“Rel. Defs.’ Answer & Cross-cl., Ex. D”). The only fact in dispute regarding the competing claims to the Death Benefit is whether Decedent’s signature on the April 26, 2019, Multipurpose Change Form, is forged.1 If it is, as Day-Jefferson, Fitzgerald, and Hubbard contend, see Rel. Defs.’ Answer & Cross-cl.
