DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE 5
COMPANY,
5
5
1:09-cv-8
Plaintiff,
5
v.
5
5
CINDEE SHERIDAN, O.R.S., a minor, A.K.S, 5
a minor, T.J.S., a minor, A.E.S., a minor,
5
5
Defendants, 5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Bruce P. Bennett, Esq.
Martial A. Webster, Sr., Esq.
Edward L. Barry, Esq.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant A.E.S.’s Motion For Partial
Summary Judgment re Prejudgment Interest (Docket No. 28) and Motion of Plaintiff to
Dismiss Defendants’ [sic] Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Re Prejudgment Interest
(Docket No. 34).  Each motion has been fully briefed.  Also, Defendants Cindee Sheridan,
O.R.S., A.K.S., and T.J.S. moved to join Defendant A.E.S.’s reply to Plaintiff’s opposition
to the motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 32).
Case: 1:09-cv-00008-WAL-GWC   Document #: 50   Filed: 04/15/10   Page 1 of 4
Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Sheridan
1:09-cv-8
Order
Page 2
Defendant A.E.S. argues that the beneficiaries are entitled to prejudgment interest
at the rate of 9%, pursuant to V.I. Code Ann. tit. 11 § 951(a)(4), and cites Hartford Accident
& Indemnity Co. v. Sharp, 87 F.3d 89 (3d Cir. 1996) in support thereof.1
Section 951(a)(4) provides: “The rate of interest shall be nine (9%) per centum per
annum on – money due or to become due where there is a contract and no rate is
specified.”  Hartford does not reference a contract rate.  In the absence of such a discussion
and the direct application of Section 951, the Court surmises that the insurance contract
before the Harford court failed to specify an interest rate.  In the matter at bar, the insurance
contract contains a provision concerning interest and the amount of interest.  Therefore,
Defendant’s reliance upon the holding in Hartford is misplaced as Hartford is distinguishable
from the matter currently before the Court.
As Plaintiff demonstrates in its opposition to said Defendant’s motion (Docket No.
30), paragraph numbered 14 of the policy at issue, titled “Payment Options” outlines the
procedure for payment of proceeds, in which an interest rate is specified.  Said Defendant,
in his reply, contends that the stated rate does not apply because none of the payment
1.  Plaintiff moves to dismiss said Defendant’s motion, contending that the Court’s entry of Final Decree of
Interpleader rendered said motion moot.  However, the Final Decree directed Plaintiff to deposit the proceeds
plus interest with the Court, but failed to specify the amount of or the rate of interest.  Consequently, the issue
of the amount or calculation of prejudgment interest has not yet been determined, and the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s motion.
Case: 1:09-cv-00008-WAL-GWC   Document #: 50   Filed: 04/15/10   Page 2 of 4
Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Sheridan
1:09-cv-8
Order
Page 3
options described were “elected” by the beneficiaries.  In his eagerness to declare the
provisions inapplicable, however, said Defendant overlooks the statement contained in the
subparagraph titled, “Payment of Proceeds. Payment”: “If no Payment Option is chosen,
We [sic] will pay interest on the Proceeds from the Option Date to the date of payment. 
The interest rate will be that being paid on Payment Option 4 on the Option Date.”  The
subparagraph titled “Payment Option 4. – Proceeds Left at Interest” provides that
“[i]nterest will be at the rate of at least 2.75% a year.”  The Court finds the language clear
and unambiguous.  No payment option was chosen.  Because no payment option was
chosen, the subparagraph stating that the insurer will pay interest at a rate of at least 2.75%
applies.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the insurance contract contains a
specific rate of interest.  Because an interest rate is specified in the insurance contract, V.I.
Code Ann. tit. 11 § 951 does not apply.  Consequently, the beneficiaries are not entitled to
prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum.  Plaintiff is obligated to pay prejudgment
interest at the rate of 2.75% a year.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
Defendant A.E.S.’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Re Prejudgment
Interest (Docket No. 28) is DENIED.
Case: 1:09-cv-00008-WAL-GWC   Document #: 50   Filed: 04/15/10   Page 3 of 4
Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Sheridan
1:09-cv-8
Order
Page 4
2.
Defendants Cindee Sheridan, O.R.S., A.K.S., and T.J.S.’s Motion For Joinder
(Docket No. 32) is GRANTED.
3.
Motion of Plaintiff to Dismiss Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary
Judgment Re Prejudgment Interest (Docket No. 34) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: April 15, 2010
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.                           
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:09-cv-00008-WAL-GWC   Document #: 50   Filed: 04/15/10   Page 4 of 4