Cordner v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Joseph Cordner was insured by a policy issued by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) (defendant). Cordner designated the two children (children) of his marriage to his then-wife Patricia Cordner as the beneficiaries of that policy. Joseph and Patricia subsequently divorced and remarried other people. According to Joseph’s second wife, Frances Cordner (plaintiff), in 1961 Joseph changed the beneficiaries of his MetLife policy such that Frances was to receive one-quarter of the money and the remaining three-quarters was to be paid to Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis (Northwestern), which was to hold the money in trust to be used for the purposes designated in Joseph’s will. However, MetLife denied receiving notice of any beneficiary change, as required by the policy. Upon Joseph’s death, Patricia, who now resided in Minnesota, sued MetLife in federal court in Minnesota seeking to require MetLife to pay the policy proceeds to the children (who also resided in Minnesota). Soon thereafter, Frances (who lived in Libya but allegedly was a North Dakota citizen) sued MetLife in this court seeking to require MetLife to pay the policy proceeds as Joseph allegedly directed in 1961. MetLife filed a motion in this action seeking to convert Patricia and Frances’s actions into a single suit in interpleader so that a single court could resolve the dispute. Patricia opposed MetLife’s motion, arguing that she and the children were improperly served with process in Minnesota. MetLife responded that service of process was proper under, among other things, New York’s Civil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR) § 314.