AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE CO., AND ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court must determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists due to insufficient pleading of diversity of citizenship.
Three insurance companies settled a tort action for their insured and then brought a declaratory judgment action to determine liability under the sett…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Citizenship For Diversity Purposes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The parties in this action, three insurance companies, each contributed funds in settlement of a tort action brought against their common insured. Two of the companies then brought this declaratory judgment action against the third to determine the companies’ respective liabilities under the settlement agreement. The district court entered a judgment from which the plaintiffs appeal.
This court sua sponte raises a question concerning its subject matter jurisdiction. The alleged jurisdictional basis for this action is diversity of citizenship. When jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the plaintiff’s complaint must specifically allege each party’s citizenship, and these allegations must show that the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc., 511 F. 2d 653 (5th Cir. 1975).
In this case the plaintiffs’ complaint simply alleged that all three parties were “foreign corporations” which were “licensed to do business and doing business in Louisiana.” It failed, however, to specify the citizenship of the parties.1 Because of this defect in the pleadings, we cannot tell if in fact the parties are diverse. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for it to determine if there is jurisdiction. It can do this by giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their defective pleadings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Of course, if the amendments show that there is no diversity of citizenship, the district court must dismiss the action.
REMANDED.
. For purposes of determining diversity of citizenship a corporation is deemed “a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). The plaintiffs are required to provide this information in their pleadings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
D. J. McDUFFIE, Inc. v. OLD Reliable Fire Ins. Co., 608 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vest Transp. Co., Inc., 666 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1982)
-
Danube Logistics USA, Inc. v. Lynnhurst Logistics, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025)…ss." See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). ☐ The pleading does not state the respective state(s) of incorporation. Note that it is insufficient to merely allege that an entity is a “foreign” corporation. See Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Employers' Ins. Co., 600 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979)⁴; see also Fid. & Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 559 F. App'x 803, 805 n.5 (11th Cir. 2014). ☑ The pleading does not adequately identify the principal place of business. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- McGOVERN v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 511 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1975)