## Facts

- Joseph Cordner was insured under a life insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife).
- While married to Patricia Cordner, Joseph designated their two children as the policy’s beneficiaries.
- Joseph and Patricia later divorced and remarried other people; Patricia became Patricia Ann Lundeen and lived in Minnesota.
- Joseph later married Frances Cordner, who lived abroad (in Libya) but was alleged to be a citizen of North Dakota.
- Frances claimed that in 1961 Joseph changed the beneficiary designation so that Frances would receive one-quarter of the proceeds and Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis would receive the remaining three-quarters to hold in trust for uses stated in Joseph’s will.
- MetLife denied receiving the notice required by the policy to effect any change of beneficiary.
- After Joseph’s death, Patricia (for the children) sued MetLife in federal court in Minnesota seeking payment of the proceeds to the originally named beneficiaries.
- Soon after, Frances sued MetLife in the Southern District of New York seeking payment consistent with the alleged 1961 change (¼ to Frances; ¾ to Northwestern as trustee).
- Faced with competing demands for the same proceeds, MetLife moved in the New York action to require the claimants to litigate in a single interpleader proceeding and to bring the Minnesota claimants before the SDNY court through out-of-state service, including under New York CPLR § 314.
- Patricia opposed the motion, arguing that service on her and the children in Minnesota was improper and that the New York court lacked jurisdiction over them.

## Issues

1. Whether an insurer confronted with rival claims to the same policy proceeds may obtain interpleader relief so the competing claimants litigate in a single federal action.
2. Whether the SDNY court could assert jurisdiction over Patricia and the children, served in Minnesota, including through out-of-state service authorized by New York CPLR § 314 as incorporated by the federal service rules.
3. Whether the existence of the earlier-filed Minnesota federal action required the SDNY court to deny or defer interpleader.

## Decision

- The court granted MetLife’s request to proceed in interpleader so that one court could determine entitlement to the policy proceeds.
- The court rejected Patricia’s objection to service and held that service on the Minnesota claimants was proper, including under CPLR § 314 and related federal procedural authority.
- The court allowed the dispute to go forward in the interpleader posture notwithstanding the parallel Minnesota suit, based on the risk of inconsistent results and multiple liability to the stakeholder.

## Legal Principles

- Interpleader is available to a disinterested stakeholder exposed to multiple, adverse claims to a single fund and the risk of multiple liability or inconsistent obligations.
- A stakeholder may seek interpleader even while disputing whether a claimed change in beneficiary was properly made, so long as the competing claims are adverse and nonfrivolous.
- Federal interpleader practice permits the court to bring all rival claimants into one action to settle rights to the res and to protect the stakeholder from duplicative litigation.
- Out-of-state service on nonresident claimants may be permitted when authorized by the forum state’s service statutes (here, CPLR § 314) and made available through the federal service rules, so that absent claimants to the res can be bound in the interpleader proceeding.
- The existence of parallel litigation in another federal district does not, by itself, bar interpleader where consolidation in one forum will resolve all claims to the fund and prevent conflicting judgments.

## Conclusion

Cordner v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. permitted MetLife, as a stakeholder facing competing beneficiary claims, to proceed in a single interpleader action in the Southern District of New York, upheld out-of-state service on the Minnesota claimants under CPLR § 314 and federal procedure, and allowed the consolidated proceeding to continue despite the earlier Minnesota action so that one court could decide who was entitled to the policy proceeds.


Cordner v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 234 F. Supp. 765 (1964)