THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM PLOTT v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; WILCAC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY - Articles

All Content

THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM PLOTT v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; WILCAC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 22, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Sarah B. Cameron, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: Kevin Koller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee Department for Health and Human Services.

Attorneys 3: Sandra K. Jones, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee Wilcac Life Insurance Company.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Sarah B. Cameron, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Kevin Koller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee Department for Health and Human Services. Sandra K. Jones, Jessica L. Gallagher, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee Wilcac Life Insurance Company.

Judge(s): COLE, GIBBONS, and BUSH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

COLE, Circuit Judge. Each year on his birthday, William Plott received a payment from Wilcac Life Insurance Company under Wilcac’s annuity contract with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). After Plott died two months before his twenty-ninth birthday, his estate sought one final payment from Wilcac. Wilcac refused, and Plott’s estate sued Wilcac and HHS. The district court concluded that HHS was a necessary and indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, but as HHS could not be joined without defeating the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the district court dismissed the case. Because the district court improperly applied Rule 19, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Attachments: