ORDER

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Third Party Defendant Theresa Rigby Harding due to lack of standing. (Doc. No. 37). Harding opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 40). As explained below, the motion is denied.

I. Background

This lawsuit involves a dispute over $466,000 in life insurance proceeds. The following is alleged in Plaintiff's complaint and Prudential Insurance Company's Counterclaim/Third Party Complaint (Doc. No. 2, 4): Maurice McGriff and Terry Rigby were domestic partners. Prudential issued life insurance on Rigby's life, and Rigby named McGriff as the sole beneficiary.

On February 18, 2015, there was a physical altercation between McGriff and Rigby. According to McGriff, he acted in self defense when he caused Rigby to fall and hit his head. Rigby eventually died from his injuries. McGriff was investigated for his role in Rigby's death, but the State Attorney determined that the facts and circumstances did not support prosecution of McGriff for Rigby's death.

McGriff contacted Prudential to claim the life insurance benefits on Rigby's life. Around the same time, Rigby's sister, Theresa Rigby Harding, made a claim for the life insurance proceeds on behalf of Rigby's Estate. Harding's claim was made based on her contention that McGriff could not receive the life insurance proceeds because he killed Rigby.1 During this time, Harding's authority to act on behalf of Rigby's Estate was revoked, and Robert Pope, Esq. was named the Curator of Rigby's Estate. Because of the competing claims for the life insurance proceeds, Prudential did not pay either claimant.

As a result, McGriff filed this lawsuit against Prudential, in which he seeks a declaration that Prudential must pay him the life insurance proceeds. In response, Prudential moved to implead all of the claimants that could be entitled to the life insurance proceeds—McGriff (the named beneficiary), Harding (Rigby's sister), and Pope (the Curator of Rigby's Estate). While this lawsuit was pending, McGriff died, and as a result, the Personal Representative of McGriff's Estate was substituted in his place.

II. Motion to Dismiss Harding for Lack of Standing

McGriff's Personal Representative moves to dismiss Harding as a potential claimant in this case. The basis for this argument is that Harding is only a possible recipient of the life insurance proceeds due to her being a contingent beneficiary under Rigby's will. Thus, McGriff's Personal Representative argues that Pope, as the Curator of Rigby's Estate, is the only other proper claimant in this case.

The flaw in McGriff's Personal Representative's argument is that she fails to acknowledge the Beneficiary Rules under the life insurance policy, which provide the following:

(Doc. No. 52-1, p. 3 of 3). Because Harding, as Rigby's sister, is a potential beneficiary under the Beneficiary Rules if McGriff is excluded from taking due to his killing Rigby, she is a proper party claimant in this case. See Carter v. Carter, 88 So.2d 153, 155 (Fla. 1956)(noting the possible claimants under a similar beneficiary provision). As a result, the Court concludes that Harding has standing and can remain in this case.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Harding due to lack of standing (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED.