The opinion of the court was delivered by: McVerry, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
These related cases arise out of competing claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy. Pending in Civil Action No. 12-123 (the "Interpleader Action") is the MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6) (Document No. 9), with brief in support, filed by Sherry Winiarski. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (the "Insurer" or "Reliance"), and Ryan and Andrew Winiarski (the "Sons") filed briefs in opposition to the motion. Also pending in the Interpleader Action is PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (Document No. 12) filed by Reliance. Pending in Civil Action No. 12-255 (the "Removal Action") is DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (Document No. 2), filed by Reliance, with brief in support. The Plaintiff in the Removal Action, Sherry Winiarski, filed a response and brief in opposition, and Reliance filed a reply brief. The motions in both cases are ripe for disposition.
Factual and Procedural Background
Michael Winiarski died on September 28, 2011. At the time of his death, Sherry Winiarski was his wife. Ryan and Andrew Winiarski, born to Michael Winiarski's first wife, Linda, were his only children. Michael and Linda (Winiarski) Potts divorced in 1996.
As part of their divorce, Michael and Linda entered into a Property Settlement Agreement dated December 5, 1994. Of particular relevance, ¶ 5(c) of the Agreement provided: "If either party should remarry, then the parties agree to keep the children, Ryan Winiarski and Andrew Winiarski as beneficiaries of one half of all life insurance policies."
At the time of his death, Michael Winiarski was insured under a group life insurance policy issued by Reliance to his employer, Tuomey Healthcare System. On April 11, 2011, Michael designated his wife Sherry as the primary beneficiary under the policy. The Sons were named as contingent beneficiaries. Life insurance proceeds of $355,000 became payable upon Michael's death.
Reliance has received competing claims for the proceeds of the life insurance policy. Sherry Winiarski claims 100% of the proceeds due under the policy. The Sons claim 50% of the proceeds due. Reliance has already paid Sherry the 50% share that is uncontested. It now seeks to interplead the remaining 50% share of the proceeds, in the amount of $177,500.
On February 3, 2012, Reliance filed the instant Interpleader Action in this Court. The Sons have filed an Answer in the Interpleader Action, in which they assert their right to the remaining insurance policy proceeds. On January 30, 2012, Sherry Winiarski initiated the Removal Action by filing a Complaint against Reliance in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania for breach of contract. The Sons were not named as parties in the Removal Action. On February 29, 2012, Reliance filed a Notice of Removal. The cases have been marked "related" pursuant to Local Rule 40.
Motion to Dismiss Interpleader Action
Sherry Winiarski seeks dismissal of the Interpleader Action. She reasons that Reliance has no basis for interpleading the insurance proceeds because the 2011 beneficiary designation is unambiguous. Sherry Winiarski contends that although the Sons may have claims against their father's estate, they have no valid claims against Reliance under the policy.
The Sons contend that their claims to the insurance proceeds are not merely sufficiently plausible to defeat the motion to dismiss, but are superior to that of Sherry Winiarski. In support of their position, they cite Torchia v. Torchia, 499 A.2d 581, 583 (Pa. Super. 1985) (a promise, made as part of a separation agreement, to maintain a policy of insurance designating children as beneficiaries vests in such children an equitable interest in the policy which is superior to that of a second wife who is later gratuitously named as a beneficiary). Reliance contends that the motion to dismiss is premature, because it focuses on the merits of the competing claims to the proceeds rather than the appropriateness of the interpleader action.
The Court agrees with Reliance. In Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Hovis, 553 F.3d 258, 262 (3d Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarized the purpose of an interpleader action:
The purpose of the interpleader device is to allow "a party who fears being exposed to the vexation of defending multiple claims to a limited fund or property that is under his control a procedure to settle the controversy and satisfy his obligation in a single proceeding." Accordingly, interpleader allows a stakeholder who "admits it is liable to one of the claimants, but fears the prospect of multiple liability[,] ... to file suit, deposit the property with the court, and withdraw from the proceedings." The result is that "[t]he competing claimants are ...