MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff New York Life Group Insurance Company of NY (“NY Life”) commenced this interpleader action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 and 29 U.S.C. §1132, seeking discharge from all liability in connection with a life insurance plan (“Plan”) previously issued to Dreena Verhagen (“Decedent”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). NY Life named the following Defendants as potential claimants to the Plan’s proceeds (“Plan Benefits”): Hendrika Maxwell, Decedent’s sister; Samantha Kantola, the Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of Randi S. Hongisto, Decedent’s friend;1 Erin Lynch, Decedent’s friend; Heidi Verhagen, Decedent’s sister; Jessica Dulong, Decedent’s niece; Scott Dulong, Decedent’s nephew; James Verhagen, Decedent’s brother; Shirley A. Davis, Decedent’s sister; and Peter Verhagen, Decedent’s brother.2 Compl.
2-10. Because NY Life itself “makes no claim to the Plan Benefits other than payment of its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs,” NY Life initiated this action so that “this Court determine to whom the Plan Benefits should be paid.” Compl. 36. On July 9, 2021, the Court granted NY Life’s Motion for Interpleader Deposit, Dkt. No. 20 (“Order — Motion for Deposit”), and on August 3, 2021, NY Life deposited the Plan Benefits amount plus applicable interest in the Court Registry Investment System, Dkt. No. 24 (“Interpleader Deposit”). On May 11, 2022, NY Life filed a Motion for Interpleader Relief to Dismiss, “request[ing] that it [and its associated entities3] be discharged from all liability, and that the Defendants be enjoined from raising any Claims against NY[] [Life] or these other entities regarding the [Plan] [B]enefits.” Dkt. No. 92-1 (“Motion”) at 2.4 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants NY Life’s request that it be discharged from the action, but the Court denies NY Life’s request for injunctive relief. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The following facts are undisputed, except where otherwise noted. Decedent was a former employee of Centene and a participant in the Plan, Compl. 13, which provided for life insurance coverage in the amount of $138,000, id. at 23. The Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Id. 13. The Plan is sponsored by Centene and funded by a group life insurance policy initially issued by Cigna Life Insurance Company of New York (“CIGNA”).5 Id. The Plan provides, in pertinent part, that: Change of Beneficiary You may change your beneficiary at any time by giving us a written notice or notice by any other electronic or telephonic means authorized by us. The beneficiary’s consent is not required for this or any other change which you may make unless the designation of beneficiary is irrevocable. No change in beneficiary will take effect until the request form is received by us. When the request form is received, it will take effect as of the date of the form. If you die before the request form is received, we will not be liable for any payment that was made before receipt of the request form. Dkt. No. 1-1 (“Compl. Ex. A”) at 27; Compl. 18. The Plan also sets forth to whom benefits should be paid in the event that a covered employee dies with no designated beneficiary: To Whom Payable Death benefits for you will be paid to the beneficiary named in our records, if any, at the time of payment. If there is no named beneficiary or surviving beneficiary, or if you die while Disability Benefits are payable to you, we may, at our option, make direct payment to any of the following: 1. spouse of the Insured; 2. child or children of the Insured; 3. parents of the Insured; 4. sisters or brothers of the Insured; or 5. the estate of the Insured. Compl. Ex. A at 27; Compl. 19. Decedent died on March 30, 2020. Compl. 20. Following Decedent’s death, Hongisto emailed a Beneficiary Designation Form (“Designation Form”) to CIGNA allegedly signed by Decedent on March 11, 2020. Id. 21; but see Dkt. Nos. 26-31 (“August 27, 2021, Answers”) 2 (James Verhagen, Davis, Heidi Verhagen, Scott Dulong, Jessica Dulong, and Maxwell “den[y] knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in” 21 of the Complaint). According to the Designation Form, the Plan Benefits were to be distributed accordingly: Maxwell to receive a 30 percent share, Hongisto to receive a 30 percent share, Lynch to receive a 20 percent share, Heidi Verhagen to receive a 10 percent share, Jessica Dulong to receive a 5 percent share, and Scott Dulong to receive a 5 percent share. Compl. 21; but see August 27, 2021, Answers 2. Following the submission of the Designation Form, Heidi Verhagen reached out to CIGNA and disputed the authenticity of the Designation Form. Compl. 22. By correspondence dated July 22, 2020, CIGNA advised Hongisto, Lynch, Jessica Dulong, and Scott Dulong their claims were denied based on the opinion of a handwriting expert in CIGNA’s Special Investigation Unit who determined that Decedent’s signature was not valid. Id.
