Alleman v. Bunge Corp., 84-3209

Decision Date19 December 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-3209,84-3209
PartiesJames J. ALLEMAN and Shirley Alleman, Plaintiffs, v. BUNGE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

John E. Galloway, New Orleans, La., for Bunge Corp. & Ins. Co. of North America.

Robert S. Reich, Charles F. Lozes, New Orleans, La., for Republic Ins. Co., et al.

Norman C. Sullivan, Jr., New Orleans, La., for St. Louis Shipbuilding.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

Bunge Corp. and Insurance Co. of North America (hereinafter referred to collectively as Bunge) appeal a summary judgment in favor of eight insurance companies. 1 Bunge attempts to base this appeal on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(3) (1982), which permits appeal of interlocutory decrees in admiralty cases. Because this appeal is not from a maritime action and no other jurisdiction exists, we dismiss the appeal.

James and Shirley Alleman brought suit in Louisiana state court to recover for personal injuries that resulted from James' falling in an open hole on a grain barge while employed by Bunge as a longshoreman. The Allemans brought claims under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. Secs. 901-950 (1982), general maritime law, and Louisiana state law, La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 2315 (West Supp.1984), against, among others, Bunge and eight other insurance companies with which Bunge had an insurance policy. Bunge removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) (1982). The federal district court then granted the eight insurance companies summary judgment on grounds that their policy with Bunge excluded coverage of claims by employees.

The admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333 (1982), could have been invoked in this case. The Allemans could have filed their complaint with a statement identifying it as a maritime claim, Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h), 2 in admiralty court. Bynum v. Patterson Truck Lines, Inc., 655 F.2d 643, 644 (5th Cir.1981) (Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is a maritime cause of action). Instead, the Allemans exercised their "historic option," Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 371, 79 S.Ct. 468, 480, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959), to bring their action in state court under the savings to suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(1) (1982). Numerous and important consequences flow from the Allemans' decision to bring their action in state court. See T.N.T. Marine Service, Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 586-87 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 151, 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983) (jurisdiction invoked governs venue, interlocutory appeals, remedies available, right to jury trial, and law that applies). By removing this action, Bunge could not alter the Allemans' substantive rights or destroy their right to prosecute their action in a common law court. Bunge could have removed this action only to a federal diversity court. Cf. Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co., 287 F.2d 252, 255 (5th Cir.1961) (maritime action brought in state court could be removed only if diversity jurisdiction existed). Therefore, the Allemans' action is not in the federal admiralty court's jurisdiction.

Because 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(3) (1982), may be used only if the federal court's admiralty jurisdiction has been invoked, Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h), Bunge cannot base jurisdiction for this appeal on that statute. Because no other basis for this appeal exists, 3 it is DISMISSED.

1 The insurance companies are: Continental Insurance Co., Bellefonte Insurance Co., Midland Insurance Co., Northeastern Insurance Co., Penn Lumberman's Mutual Insurance Co., The Lumberman Insurance Co., Ranger Insurance Co., and Republic Insurance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Garcia v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 15 d4 Agosto d4 2019
    ...Cir. 1997) ; Fedorczyk v. Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd. , 82 F.3d 69, 73 (3d Cir. 1996) ; Baris , 932 F.2d at 1547 ; Alleman v. Bunge Corp. , 756 F.2d 344, 345 (5th Cir. 1984). In the second type of case, the issue is "how specific a party must be in identifying an admiralty claim in a compl......
  • Wingerter v. Chester Quarry Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 11 d5 Setembro d5 1998
    ...(5th Cir.) (per curiam) (listing examples), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847 (1983); accord Foulk, 144 F.3d at 255; Alleman v. Bunge Corp., 756 F.2d 344, 345 (5th Cir. 1984) (citing T.N.T. Marine). The most relevant consequence for our purposes is that the failure to properly reference a claim as......
  • Coody v. Exxon Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • 3 d1 Março d1 1986
    ...remove the suit to federal court on the basis of the court's admiralty jurisdiction as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Alleman v. Bunge Corporation, 756 F.2d 344 (5th Cir.1984). In Alleman the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3),7 becau......
  • Trentacosta v. Frontier Pacific Aircraft Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 8 d3 Abril d3 1987
    ...when he expressly claimed jurisdiction in his complaint exclusively under the Jones Act and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. See Alleman v. Bunge Corp., 756 F.2d 344, 345 (5th Cir.1984). The defendants moved to dismiss Trentacosta's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They contended he was ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT