 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mahoney v. Westfield Ins. Co.12/30/1997
ol the court's eventual disposition of the funds. Plaintiffs cite as authority for this proposition Atkinson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (1926), 114 Ohio St. 109, 150 N.E. 748, in which the court stated:
"In the event of a controversy between a former named beneficiary and a new beneficiary, if the insurance company interpleads in an action by a claimant to recover the proceeds of the policy it thereby waives any interest in the outcome of the action and thereupon the cause shall proceed between the respective claimants uninfluenced by any rights or interests of the insurance company." Id., paragraph five of the syllabus.
Atkinson appears to remain the law of Ohio on this aspect of interpleader, being cited and relied upon more recently in Kabbaz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 254, 256, 27 OBR 297, 298-299, 501 N.E.2d 43, 45. Westfield has advanced no case or authority, nor has our research discovered any, which supports the proposition that the stakeholder, once funds are inter-
pleaded, may attempt to direct the disposition of the funds by the trial court. The paucity of authority on this issue can be taken as directly related to the circumstances of the case before us which made the matter perhaps unsuitable for interpleader; that is, that the limits of coverage remained in controversy at the time the amount was interpleaded.
As this court has recognized, "an interpleader action is available to a party who may be exposed to double or multiple liability for an admitted debt." Lincoln Natl. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor (June 17, 1993), Franklin App. Nos. 92AP-1724 and 92AP-1725, unreported, 1993 WL 212849. Although the outcome for appellant would appear undeniably harsh, were the eventual policy limits to be set at $600,000, in the present case, Westfield undertook the interpleader action on the theory that the $300,000 was an admitted debt (which the coverage dispute has rendered doubtful given the eventual disposition of the funds by the trial court). Nonetheless, Westfield chose to interplead the entire limits of the policy with the court.
Under Civ.R. 22, disposition of the interpleaded funds is at the trial court's discretion. Under the rule of law in Atkinson, Westfield as the stakeholder bringing the interpleader action has no standing to dispute the eventual disposition of funds by the trial court. Westfield's assignment of error is accordingly overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas directing distribution of the interpleaded funds to Mary Mahoney is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed
TYACK, P.J., and PETREE, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|