United of Omaha Life Insurance Company v. McIntosh et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 25-cv-10193
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
BREON McINTOSH, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTIONS (1) FOR A
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BREON McINTOSH
(ECF No. 15) AND (2) TO PERMIT DISCOVERY (ECF No. 16)
In 2024, Defendant Breon McIntosh was convicted in state court of murdering
his wife, Andricka N. McIntosh. (See Compl. at ¶ 10, ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) 	At
the time of her death, Andricka had a $200,000 life insurance policy issued by
Plaintiff United of Omaha Life Insurance Company (the “Policy”). (See id. at ¶ 7,
PageID.3.) 	Following Breon’s conviction, United of Omaha filed this declaratory
judgment action. It seeks (1) “an immediate declaration from this Court that [Breon]
is not eligible to receive death benefits under [Mich. Comp. Laws §] 700.2802 …
insofar as he was the primary beneficiary under the Policy and was convicted of
second-degree murder in connection with [Andricka’s] death” and (2) “a declaration
as to whether [Andricka] made any material misrepresentations in the application
Case 2:25-cv-10193-MFL-DRG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 5

2
for the Policy and, as a result, whether any listed beneficiaries are entitled to the
benefits under the Policy.” (Id. at ¶ 1, PageID.2.) 	In addition, United of Omaha
“seeks to investigate, as part of the Policy’s two-year contestability period, whether
[Andricka] was the individual that completed the application for and took out the
Policy.” (Id.) United of Omaha brings this action against (1) Breon McIntosh and
(2) 	Taunya 	M. 	Sims, 	“the 	purported 	custodial 	guardian 	of 	[the] 	contingent
beneficiaries” under the Policy. (Id. at ¶ 4, PageID.3.) Neither Breon nor Sims have
appeared in this action. Accordingly, United of Omaha sought, and the Clerk of the
Court entered, defaults against both Defendants. (See Defaults, ECF Nos. 10, 14.)
Now pending before the Court are two motions filed by United of Omaha: (1)
a motion for default judgment as to Breon and (2) a motion to permit discovery
arising out of United of Omaha’s right under Michigan law to contest payment under
the Policy. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 15, 16.) The Defendants have not filed responses
to either motion. For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS both
motions.1
I
The Court begins with the motion for default judgment against Breon
McIntosh. 	“To grant default judgment, the Court must ensure that (1) it has both
1 The Court concludes that it may resolve the motions without oral argument. See
E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).
Case 2:25-cv-10193-MFL-DRG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 5

3
subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and personal jurisdiction over [Breon], (2)
[Breon was] properly served, and (3) [United of Omaha] is entitled to the relief
sought.” Pathward, NA v. Inlet Trucking, Inc., 2025 WL 2014371, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
July 17, 2025). All of those requirements are met here. The Court has both subject-
matter jurisdiction over this action (based on the amount in controversy and the
diversity of the parties) and personal jurisdiction over Breon (a Michigan citizen).
Second, 	United 	of 	Omaha 	properly 	served 	Breon 	with 	the 	Complaint. 	(See
Certificate of Service, ECF No. 5.) It also served him with a copy, by United States
Mail, of its motion for default judgment. (See Mot., ECF No. 15, PageID.67.) And
Breon has not responded to either filing or contacted the Court to ask for additional
time to respond. 	Finally, for all of the reasons explained in United of Omaha’s
motion, United of Omaha is entitled to its requested default judgment. 	Indeed, by
virtue of not responding to the Complaint and being defaulted, Breon has “conceded
the truth of the well-pled allegations in [United of Omaha’s] complaint.” Pathward,
2025 WL 2014371, at *1. See also Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110
(6th Cir. 1995) (“Once a default has been entered by the Clerk’s Officer, … a
plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations are deemed admitted.”).
For all of these reasons, United of Omaha’s motion for a default judgment
against Breon McIntosh (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. 	United of Omaha shall
Case 2:25-cv-10193-MFL-DRG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 5

4
submit a proposed default judgment to the Court by no later than December 15,
2025.
II
The Court next turns to United of Omaha’s motion to permit discovery. (See
Mot., ECF No. 16.) In that motion, United of Omaha explains that under Michigan
law, “an insurance policy is contestable for a period of two years from its date of
issue.” (Id., PageID.75, citing Mich Comp. Laws § 500.4208). And it argues that it
needs discovery to determine if it has the right to contest payment under the Policy.
More specifically, United of Omaha seeks discovery into (1) whether the decedent,
Andricka McIntosh, actually took out the life insurance policy issued in her name
and (2) whether there were “potential misrepresentations or fraud that may render
the Policy void or rescindable.” (Id.) 	Finally, United of Omaha explains that it
“requires the subpoena power of this Honorable Court to obtain the medical records
and notice depositions necessary to complete its contestability review, and to
properly investigate whether [Andricka] was, in fact, the individual that applied for
and obtained the Policy.” (Id.)
United of Omaha served its motion for discovery on the Defendants by
United States Mail on May 13, 2025. (See id., PageID.78.) Neither Defendant has
responded to the motion nor contacted the Court to ask for additional time to respond
to the motion. For all of the reasons explained in the motion, the Court concludes
Case 2:25-cv-10193-MFL-DRG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 5

5
that it is appropriate to allow United of Omaha to conduct the discovery it requests.
The motion to permit discovery (ECF No. 16) is therefore GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 17, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 17, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
Case 2:25-cv-10193-MFL-DRG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 5 of 5