Courembis Ex Rel. Estate of Courembis v. United of Omaha Life Insurance , 486 F. App'x 843 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •             Case: 12-11176   Date Filed: 08/15/2012   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-11176
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-03281-TWT
    JOHN COUREMBIS, individually and
    as Executor of the Estate of
    Dorothy C. Courembis,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    _________________________
    (August 15, 2012)
    Before TJOFLAT, HILL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
    Case: 12-11176        Date Filed: 08/15/2012      Page: 2 of 4
    PER CURIAM:
    In this diversity appeal, the district court granted defendant-appellee United
    of Omaha Life Insurance Company’s (United), motion to dismiss the complaint for
    failure to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It did so on the
    basis that plaintiff-appellant John C. Courembis (Courembis) had not pled a
    plausible breach of contract claim under Georgia law.
    In 1999, Beverly Harden (Harden) applied for a $1,000,000 life insurance
    policy with United, insuring the life of Dorothy C. Courembis (Dorothy), mother
    of Courembis.1 On the application, the sole beneficiary of the policy is designated
    as “Beverly C. Harden - Trustee for the Dorthy C. Courembis Irrevocable Trust,”
    with a stated relationship as “Trustee.” The policy was issued to Harden, as
    trustee.
    From 1999, until her death in 2008, Dorothy funded the trust, and Harden,
    as trustee, made annual premium payments to United of approximately $75,000
    per year. Upon Dorothy’s death, Harden, as trustee, in her capacity as beneficiary
    of the life insurance policy upon Dorothy’s life, submitted a claim under the
    policy. United paid the claim by issuing a check to “Beverly Harden, trustee of
    1
    Courembis is the executor of his mother’s, Dorothy, estate.
    2
    Case: 12-11176        Date Filed: 08/15/2012       Page: 3 of 4
    the Dorothy C. Courembis Trust.” 2 Courembis claims that Harden absconded
    with the $997,814.80, in policy benefits.3 Under the terms of the irrevocable trust,
    Courembis was entitled to receive half of the amount.
    The district court found that the facts of the complaint, construed as true,
    did not state a claim for relief, therefore United did not breach the insurance
    contract.4 United paid the proceeds to Harden, as trustee, the named beneficiary
    under the policy, the correct payee under the terms of the life insurance policy. In
    so doing, the district court found that United properly discharged its duties as
    required by statute. O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41. We agree.
    Georgia law provides that, once the insurer pays the person designated in
    the policy as being entitled to the proceeds, the insurer is discharged from all
    claims under the policy. O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41; see also Colonial Life & Accident
    Ins. Co. v. Heveder, 
    274 Ga. App. 377
    , 379 (2005). In addition, United did not
    receive notice, before paying Harden, that some other beneficiary should receive
    2
    Harden was the trustee of two trusts established by Dorothy: a living trust and an
    irrevocable trust. United’s check did not specify which trust was the recipient.
    3
    Courembis has filed a separate, ongoing suit against Harden under O.C.G.A. § 53-12-302,
    alleging that Harden did not discharge her duties as trustee after United issued payment.
    4
    The district court also dismissed Courembis’ bad faith claim against United under O.C.G.A
    § 33-4-6, on the ground that United had discharged its duties under the policy. Courembis’ motion
    for summary judgment was denied as moot.
    3
    Case: 12-11176    Date Filed: 08/15/2012   Page: 4 of 4
    payment; United had no duty to foresee that Harden would abscond with the
    proceeds. Id. at 379-80.
    We have reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs and the arguments of
    counsel. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-11176

Citation Numbers: 486 F. App'x 843

Judges: Tjoflat, Hill, Kravitch

Filed Date: 8/15/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024