Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Athmer
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
178 F.3d 473 (1999)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Kevin Spann, an Illinois resident, owned and was the named insured of a Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) (plaintiff) life-insurance policy. Kevin named his wife, Gina Spann, as the policy’s primary beneficiary, with the policy’s contingent beneficiaries being Gina’s natural son and Gina’s sister, Steven Hill and Betty Jo Pierce, respectively (defendants). Gina’s subsequent conviction in Georgia for murdering Kevin disqualified Gina as his beneficiary. DNA testing following Kevin’s death brought to light the hitherto unknown and unacknowledged existence of Kevin’s natural daughter, Chrystal Athmer (defendant). Athmer claimed the proceeds of Kevin’s life-insurance policy on the grounds that, as the murderer’s blood relatives, neither Hill nor Pierce should be allowed to substitute for Gina as the policy’s beneficiaries. Prudential filed an interpleader lawsuit to determine who was entitled to the policy proceeds. Applying Illinois law, a federal district court found that because Gina’s relatives had become estranged from Gina, Gina was unlikely ever to benefit even indirectly from the policy proceeds. The court awarded those proceeds to Hill and Pierce. Athmer appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which, as a threshold matter, determined that Illinois law, and not Georgia law, governed the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
