Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Genworth Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Hunt

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 6, 2018

GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs,
v.
AMBER HUNT, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is Amber Hunt's (“petitioner”) petition for approval to compromise claims of minors. (ECF No. 14).

         In the present petition, the natural mother and legal custodial parent of Jayda Madison Hunt and Jeremy Alwin Hunt (the “minor claimants”), petitions the court to approve the proposed compromise of the claims of the minor claimants, as set forth in the settlement agreement. (ECF No. 14).

         On April 8, 2003, plaintiff Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“Genworth”) issued the flexible premium adjustable life insurance policy no. 6706243 (the “policy”) to Jared Hunt (the “insured”), former husband of the petitioner, and now-deceased father of the minor claimants. (ECF No. 14). The insured designated his then-wife, the petitioner, as the sole primary beneficiary of the policy and Jared Hunt, the insured's adult son from a previous marriage, as the sole contingency beneficiary. Id. During the insured and petitioner's marriage, the couple had two children, the minor claimants. Id.

         On October 25, 2011, petitioner and the insured were divorced, however, the insured did not submit a change of beneficiary to Genworth at any time. (ECF No. 14). On August 22, 2016, the insured died. Id. The death benefit of the policy is $1, 000, 000.00. Id. Upon the insured's death, both petitioner and Jared Hunt, the insured's adult son, contacted Genworth to assert competing claims to the death benefit. Id. Genworth notified both petitioner and Jared Hunt that the death benefit had been reduced by a loan that the insured took against the policy, reducing the death benefit total to $967, 474.05. Id.

         Jared Hunt and petitioner, on behalf of herself and the minor claimants, were able to amicably resolve their competing claims to the death benefit. (ECF No. 14). Accordingly, Genworth, Jared Hunt, and the petitioner entered into a settlement agreement with the following terms:

(1) Within forty-five (45) days upon the granting of the instant Petition, Genworth shall distribute the Net Death Benefit equally among Jared Hunt (25%), Petitioner Amber Hunt (25%), Jayda Madison Hunt (25%) and Jeremy Alwin Hunt (25%) (“Agreement”);
(2) The distribution checks to Jeremy and Jayda shall be made payable to Amber Hunt for the benefit of each minor and shall be deposited in respective blocked financial investments for their benefit in accordance with Nevada Revised Statute § 41.200(5);
(3) The Settlement Agreement becomes effective upon this Court's approval thereof;
(4) Global mutual releases;
(5) Dismissal of the Instant Action within ten (10) days of full distribution by Genworth; and

(ECF No. 14).

         Petitioner believes acceptance of the terms set forth in the settlement agreement is in the best interest of the minor claimants. (ECF No. 14).

         Pursuant to NRS 41.200, “[i]f an unemancipated minor has a disputed claim for money against a third person, either parent . . . . has the right to compromise the claim. Such a compromise is not effective until it is approved by the district court of the county where the minor resides, or if the minor is not a resident of the State of Nevada, then by the district court of the county where the claim was incurred, upon a verified petition in writing, regularly filed with the court.” Section (2) of NRS 41.200 sets forth the requirements of the petition, which include information about the incident, the minor, the guardian, the total amount of proceeds of the compromise and how those funds are to be distributed. NRS 41.200.

         Further, the petition must explain why the compromise is in the best interest of the minor, and demonstrate “that petitioner has been advised and understands that acceptance of the compromise will bar the minor from seeking further ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.