Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. McClain, 77-2094
| Decision Date | 17 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-2094,77-2094 |
| Citation | 603 F.2d 821 |
| Parties | FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lantz McCLAIN, Administrator of the Estate of Gary Watson, deceased, Defendant Below. Appeal of Marianne MONTGOMERY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Scott T. Knowles, Tulsa, Okl. (Ray H. Wilburn, Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Allen B. Mitchell, Sapulpa, Okl., for Marianne Montgomery, defendant-appellant.
Before HOLLOWAY and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, Judge. *
This is a declaratory judgment action brought by Farmers Insurance Company pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to determine its duties and obligations under a policy of automobile insurance issued by it to one Dan F. Montgomery. The policy insured a 1972 Dodge Colt automobile. Dan Montgomery granted one Gary Watson permission to operate the 1972 Dodge Colt. While driving the Dodge Colt, Gary Watson was involved in an accident wherein he was killed, and a passenger, one Marianne Montgomery, was severely injured. On the date of the accident Marianne Montgomery and Gary Watson were living together in the same household as common-law husband and wife. 1
Marianne Montgomery later brought suit in the District Court of Creek County, State of Oklahoma, against Lantz McClain, the Administrator of the Estate of Gary Watson, alleging negligence on the part of Gary Watson and seeking damages for the personal injuries suffered in the accident.
Farmers Insurance, a Kansas corporation, then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against Lantz McClain, the Administrator of the Estate of Gary Watson, and Marianne Montgomery, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no liability under the policy of insurance that it had issued Dan Montgomery. The named defendants are both citizens of Oklahoma. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship and it was alleged that the "matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $10,000.00." Attached to the complaint was a copy of the insurance policy issued to Dan Montgomery by Farmers.
As stated, Dan Montgomery was the named insured. Under the definition of "insured," the term "insured" included any other person using the Dodge Colt with permission of the named insured. It is agreed that Gary Watson was using the Dodge Colt at the time of the accident with the permission of Dan Montgomery, the named insured.
The policy provided for bodily injury liability in the amount of $10,000 per person. The policy also provided that in addition to the applicable limits of liability Farmers would pay all expenses incurred by Farmers, all costs taxed against the insured in any defendant suit, and a pro rata share of post-judgment interest.
The defendants in the declaratory judgment proceeding, i. e., Lantz McClain, Administrator of the Estate of Gary Watson, and Marianne Montgomery, both filed motions to dismiss on the ground that the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000, and that accordingly there was a lack of federal jurisdiction. These motions were denied. Farmers Insurance then filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that under a provision of the policy known as the household exclusion clause, Farmers is not obligated to pay Any judgment which Marianne Montgomery might have against the Administrator of the Estate of Gary Watson. 2 The trial court granted this motion and entered summary judgment in favor of Farmers. Marianne Montgomery appeals.
The first matter urged on appeal is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction inasmuch as Farmers' obligation under its policy was limited to $10,000 coverage per person for bodily injury. This argument, in our view, misconceives the extent of Farmers' obligation under its policy with its named insured, Dan Montgomery.
28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides that United States District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions between citizens of different states "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest or costs . . . ." The phrase "exclusive of interest or costs" in section 1332 obviously refers to interest or costs which might be awarded in connection with the federal diversity proceedings. In other words, in determining whether the matter in controversy between citizens of different states exceeds $10,000, possible interest or costs that might be allowed in connection with the federal action should not be considered.
The general rule applicable to the present controversy is set forth in 6A Moore's Federal Practice P 57.23 at 57-244, 245 (2d ed. 1974) as follows:
The amount in controversy is determined as in other types of civil litigation requiring a jurisdictional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nation v. State Farm Ins. Co.
...at 1088.21 Equity, supra note 17 at 952.22 Okl., 777 P.2d 941, 943 (1989).23 Looney, supra note 18 at 1142; Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. McClain, 603 F.2d 821, 823-824 (10th Cir.1979).24 Looney, supra note 18.25 Id. at 1142.26 Supra note 23.27 McClain, supra note 23 at 823-824.28 Id. at 823.29......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc.
...two cases, [Springstead v. Crawfordsville State Bank , 231 U.S. 541, 34 S.Ct. 195, 58 L.Ed. 354 (1913) ] and [Farmers Insurance Company v. McClain, 603 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 1979) ] which held that costs and attorneys' fees should be considered part of the amount in controversy for jurisdicti......
-
Bp America v. State Auto Property & Cas.
...21, 958 P.2d 128. Furthermore, the insured did not cite to All American Ins. Co. v. Burns, see note 17, infra, nor to Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. McClain, see note 17, infra, both of which are 10th Circuit cases applying Oklahoma law. These cases fall within the majority position, determining......
-
Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bakke
...amount in controversy. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Farmers Insurance Co., Inc. v. McClain, 603 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1979). Unfortunately, the New Mexico Supreme Court has not ruled on the issues presented. Accordingly, our decision on the s......