Interpleader Actions in Maryland — When Multiple Claimants Compete for the Same Fund
Published .
Interpleader is a procedural device designed for a party who possesses money or property claimed by two or more competing parties but does not claim the property for itself. Rather than decide which claimant should be paid—and risk paying the wrong one—the stakeholder may place the disputed property before the court and require the claimants to litigate their competing rights.
The classic personal-injury example is an insurer holding inadequate liability-policy limits when several injured persons assert claims whose combined value substantially exceeds the available insurance. Interpleader also arises with life-insurance proceeds, settlement funds, attorney trust accounts, escrowed money, estate distributions, liens, contractual payments, and other property subject to competing demands.
For an injured claimant, however, interpleader can mean something considerably less attractive than orderly procedure: a long wait followed by a very small share of an inadequate fund.
The Basic Concept
Suppose an insurer has a $100,000 per-accident liability limit and receives claims from several seriously injured people whose combined damages substantially exceed $100,000.
Paying one claimant may exhaust money sought by the others. Refusing to pay anyone leaves the insurer exposed to competing demands.
Interpleader provides a mechanism, when its requirements are satisfied, for placing the disputed fund before the court and requiring the claimants to establish their respective rights to it.
An interpleader proceeding commonly presents two related questions:
1. Is interpleader appropriate, and should the stakeholder be permitted to deposit the disputed property and obtain protection against multiple claims to that property?
2. How should the deposited property ultimately be distributed among the competing claimants?
The procedure thus separates the stakeholder's problem of competing demands from the claimants' dispute over entitlement to the limited fund.
Maryland Interpleader
Maryland Rule 2-221 governs interpleader in Maryland circuit courts.
The Rule permits a plaintiff exposed to double or multiple liability to require competing claimants to litigate their claims against one another. Interpleader is not defeated merely because the competing claims lack a common origin, are independent of one another, or because the stakeholder disputes liability in whole or in part.
The modern rule retains the equitable purpose of interpleader without imposing all of the technical restrictions historically associated with the remedy.
The Stakeholder Need Not Wait for Multiple Judgments
Interpleader is preventive.
A stakeholder ordinarily need not wait until several claimants have obtained judgments or until inconsistent obligations have actually been imposed. The point is to avoid that situation before it occurs.
That makes interpleader particularly useful when the existence of a limited fund is known early and the aggregate claims plainly exceed it.
Interpleader Is Not Necessarily an Admission of Liability
Filing an interpleader action does not necessarily concede every claimant's substantive claim.
Maryland Rule 2-221 accommodates circumstances in which the stakeholder disputes liability in whole or in part.
A stakeholder may acknowledge possession of a particular fund while disputing additional liability asserted against it. The court must therefore distinguish among:
• claims to the deposited fund;
• claims asserting that additional money or property should have been deposited; and
• independent claims against the stakeholder based upon its own conduct.
Those are not necessarily the same controversy.
Depositing the Money Does Not Automatically End the Stakeholder's Problems
A stakeholder frequently asks to be dismissed after depositing the disputed property with the court.
That may be appropriate when the stakeholder is genuinely disinterested and the only remaining issue is which claimant receives the property.
But interpleader is not a universal escape hatch.
If a claimant asserts an independent cause of action against the stakeholder, depositing the fund does not necessarily extinguish that claim. The same is true when there is a legitimate dispute over whether the stakeholder has deposited everything it is legally obligated to provide.
The important question therefore is not simply:
Has the money been deposited?
It is also:
Is the stakeholder truly disinterested, and is the deposited property really the entire subject of the controversy?
Inadequate Automobile Liability Limits
Multiple-claimant automobile accidents are among the most important practical applications of interpleader.
Assume a negligent driver causes a collision involving several vehicles. The driver has a $100,000 per-accident liability limit, but the combined value of the bodily-injury claims is $1 million.
The insurer cannot create additional policy limits. At the same time, paying one claimant generously may leave little or nothing for others.
Interpleader can provide a mechanism for placing the available limits before a court and allowing the competing claimants to establish their rights.
But the filing of an interpleader action should not cause claimant's counsel to assume that the amount deposited represents the entire universe of available recovery.
Coverage and liability investigation must continue.
The Multi-Passenger Bus Accident: A Particularly Unpleasant Interpleader Problem
One of the least attractive multiple-claimant cases can arise when a third-party motorist causes an accident involving a bus carrying numerous passengers.
An MTA bus accident provides a useful Maryland example.
If the MTA operator caused or contributed to the collision, potential governmental liability and the rules applicable to claims against the responsible public entity present their own issues.
A very different problem exists when the MTA operator did nothing wrong and an unrelated motorist caused the collision.
There may be numerous injured bus passengers but only one private tortfeasor's automobile liability policy available to satisfy their claims.
A $100,000 or even larger per-accident limit can become remarkably small when divided among a substantial number of injured people.
The arithmetic can become brutal.
If ten or fifteen passengers have legitimate bodily-injury claims, even a seriously injured claimant may ultimately receive only a small fraction of the value of the claim from the tortfeasor's liability coverage.
These are the pie-sliver cases: everyone may have a valid claim, but there is simply not enough pie.
The Practical Problem Is Worse Than the Arithmetic
The inadequate fund is only part of the difficulty.
A mass-passenger accident may involve numerous injured people represented by numerous attorneys. Before meaningful allocation can occur, the insurer and counsel may need to determine:
• how many passengers are actually asserting claims;
• the nature and severity of each person's injuries;
• whether additional claims remain unpresented;
• whether any claimant has filed suit;
• whether liens exist;
• whether any claimant has died;
• whether derivative or wrongful-death claims exist;
• whether settlements have already been negotiated;
• whether additional insurance or defendants exist; and
• whether the limited fund will be distributed by agreement or through litigation.
The presence of many lawyers adds another practical problem.
Scheduling a mediation, deposition, hearing, settlement conference, or other event that requires the participation of numerous attorneys can become extraordinarily difficult. A date acceptable to most participants may be impossible for one or two, producing another round of scheduling and additional delay.
The client may experience months or years of litigation without understanding why a seemingly straightforward accident has become so cumbersome.
The Client's Perspective
This creates a particularly difficult attorney-client problem.
The client knows that someone else caused the accident.
The client's injuries are real.
Liability may not even be seriously contested.
The client therefore understandably expects meaningful compensation.
After a lengthy process, however, the lawyer may have to explain that the available liability insurance is being divided among numerous injured passengers and that the client's share is only a small percentage of what the claim would ordinarily have been worth.
That is a recipe for an unhappy client even when the lawyer has handled the case correctly.
The disappointment is intensified by delay. Waiting a very long time for a very small recovery feels substantially different from receiving the same amount promptly.
For that reason, the multiple-claimant problem should be explained at the beginning of the representation rather than after the fund has finally been divided.
Why Some Lawyers Are Reluctant to Accept These Cases
Clear liability does not necessarily make a case economically attractive.
A lawyer evaluating a bus-passenger claim caused entirely by an unrelated third-party driver should consider at intake:
• the probable number of injured passengers;
• the tortfeasor's per-person and per-accident limits;
• the apparent severity of the other passengers' injuries;
• whether the transit operator bears any independent responsibility;
• whether another defendant contributed to the occurrence;
• whether commercial, umbrella, or excess insurance exists;
• whether the client has access to UM/UIM benefits;
• the likelihood of interpleader or another multi-claimant allocation proceeding;
• the probable delay involved; and
• whether the likely recovery justifies the time and expense required to pursue it.
The lawyer should also consider the client's expectations.
A claimant with modest injuries may understandably believe that an obvious-liability case should settle easily. In a bus accident involving numerous claimants and inadequate limits, the opposite may be true.
The problem is not proving negligence.
The problem is that too many people are standing in line for the same money.
Interpleader and Settlement Negotiations
Before interpleader, the claimants may be negotiating separately with the insurer. Once the fund is deposited, the practical dispute may shift from claimant versus insurer to claimant versus claimant.
That changes settlement dynamics considerably.
One claimant's larger allocation necessarily means less money for someone else.
Counsel may need to evaluate:
• relative injury severity;
• medical expenses;
• lost earnings;
• permanency;
• liens;
• derivative claims;
• wrongful-death interests;
• statutory priorities;
• previously negotiated settlements;
• releases;
• subrogation interests; and
• independent sources of recovery.
Allocation therefore may become a negotiation among people who were all injured by the same tortfeasor but now possess competing financial interests.
Look Beyond the Interpleaded Fund
An interpleader complaint should prompt investigation, not resignation.
Counsel should determine whether other recovery sources exist, including:
• additional liability policies;
• umbrella or excess coverage;
• commercial automobile coverage;
• employer or agency liability;
• additional insured coverage;
• other negligent drivers;
• negligent vehicle owners;
• roadway or construction defendants where factually supportable;
• UM/UIM coverage;
• applicable first-party benefits; and
• collectible personal assets when appropriate.
In a bus case, counsel should separately investigate whether the bus operator or transit authority actually was free from fault rather than accepting that proposition simply because another driver received the citation.
The limited fund matters only after counsel has determined that it really is the limited fund.
UM/UIM Coverage Can Become Critical
When a tortfeasor's liability limits are inadequate, uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage may become particularly important.
The availability of UM/UIM benefits depends upon the applicable policies and circumstances. Counsel should identify every potentially applicable policy rather than assuming that the passenger's recovery is confined to the tortfeasor's liability limits.
That investigation may include policies covering the claimant personally, household policies, policies associated with vehicles involved in the occurrence, and other coverage potentially applicable under Maryland law.
The existence of interpleader does not eliminate those separate contractual rights.
Federal Interpleader
Federal law provides two principal interpleader mechanisms.
Rule Interpleader
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 authorizes interpleader but does not independently create federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The stakeholder must establish an independent jurisdictional basis, such as federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction under the ordinary jurisdictional statutes.
Statutory Interpleader
Congress separately created statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335.
Among its requirements, statutory interpleader generally involves money or property worth $500 or more, adverse claimants satisfying the statute's diversity requirement, and deposit of the disputed property with the court or provision of an appropriate bond.
Unlike ordinary diversity jurisdiction, statutory interpleader employs minimal diversity among adverse claimants rather than the traditional complete-diversity requirement.
Special federal provisions also govern venue and process. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1397 and 2361.
Counsel should therefore identify whether a federal action invokes Rule 22 interpleader or statutory interpleader. They are related procedures but not jurisdictionally interchangeable.
Counterclaims Against the Stakeholder
A claimant served with an interpleader complaint should determine whether the client has claims against the stakeholder independent of entitlement to the deposited property.
The distinction between a claim to the stake and a claim against the stakeholder may determine whether the stakeholder can properly obtain dismissal.
This is particularly important where the stakeholder's conduct before filing interpleader allegedly caused separate damage.
Attorney's Fees and Costs
A disinterested stakeholder may sometimes request reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with bringing the interpleader action.
For claimants competing over an already inadequate fund, that request deserves attention.
Every dollar removed from a limited fund to compensate the stakeholder's attorneys is a dollar unavailable to compensate the injured claimants.
The court may consider the stakeholder's status, the nature of the dispute, the work performed, the size of the fund, and the applicable law in determining whether fees are appropriate.
A claimant should not assume that a fee request is automatically allowable merely because the stakeholder used the word "interpleader."
Interpleader Does Not Increase the Fund
Interpleader solves a procedural problem.
It does not solve an inadequate-insurance problem.
If fifteen injured passengers are competing for $100,000, placing the $100,000 into the court registry does not transform it into $1 million.
It simply provides an orderly mechanism for deciding what portion of the inadequate $100,000 each claimant receives.
That distinction explains why some interpleader cases are procedurally successful yet deeply unsatisfactory to everyone involved.
Explain the Problem Early
A lawyer accepting a multiple-claimant limited-fund case should consider explaining the problem to the client in plain language at the outset.
There may be substantial delay.
There may be many lawyers involved.
The client's claim may be worth substantially more than the amount ultimately recoverable.
And the final distribution may depend not merely upon the client's injuries but upon the number and severity of everyone else's claims.
An early candid discussion cannot create more insurance coverage.
It can, however, prevent the client from spending two years expecting a recovery that the available fund could never realistically provide.
Interpleader Is a Procedural Device, Not a Substantive Defense
The central distinction should remain clear.
Interpleader ordinarily determines who receives disputed money or property.
It does not necessarily determine:
• whether the stakeholder previously breached a contract;
• whether an insurer breached an independent obligation;
• whether additional insurance exists;
• whether another defendant is liable;
• whether the deposited amount represents everything legally owed; or
• whether a claimant possesses an independent cause of action.
Counsel should not permit the procedural mechanism to define the substantive limits of the client's case.
Practical Lesson
The most important question in a multiple-claimant case may not be:
How strong is liability?
It may be:
How many people are competing for how much money?
That question should be asked before substantial time and expense are invested in the case.
A completely innocent MTA passenger injured by an obviously negligent third-party driver may appear to have an excellent case. Legally, the passenger may.
Economically, the case may be terrible.
If numerous passengers are injured, the tortfeasor has inadequate per-accident limits, no additional responsible defendant exists, and no meaningful additional coverage can be found, interpleader may eventually produce exactly what the procedure promises—an orderly distribution of the available fund.
Unfortunately, an orderly distribution of an inadequate fund is still an inadequate recovery.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
• Md. Rule 2-221 — Maryland's circuit-court interpleader rule, permitting interpleader when a plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 — Federal rule interpleader; the Rule does not itself supply federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
• 28 U.S.C. § 1335 — Federal statutory interpleader, including the amount-in-controversy and minimal-diversity framework.
• 28 U.S.C. § 1397 — Special venue provision for statutory interpleader.
• 28 U.S.C. § 2361 — Provides for nationwide process and appropriate injunctive relief in federal statutory interpleader proceedings.
• 28 U.S.C. § 1332 — Ordinary diversity jurisdiction, potentially relevant when Rule 22 interpleader relies upon diversity as the independent jurisdictional basis.