Business Men's Assur. Co. of America, In re

Decision Date29 April 1993
Docket NumberNo. 93-1290,93-1290
Citation992 F.2d 181
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Robert Wilson McKinley, Kansas City, MO, for petitioner.

Kevin R. Thomas, Independence, MO, for respondent.

Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge.


Business Men's Assurance Company of America (BMA) petitions for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to retain jurisdiction of a vexatious refusal-to-pay claim brought against BMA by William A. Rodgers. We deny the petition.

Rodgers obtained BMA health insurance through his wife's employer, Family Institute (FI). After BMA denied Rodgers's claims for benefits, Rodgers filed this action in state court. BMA removed the case to federal district court, claiming ERISA preempted the state action because the health insurance policy was an employer-purchased plan. Rodgers petitioned for remand, claiming the policy was not an employee welfare benefit plan.

The district court could not determine whether FI had established and maintained an ERISA plan because it was unclear whether FI did more than collect and mail insurance premiums. The court resolved its doubt about federal question jurisdiction in favor of remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and it declined to rule whether ERISA would control the remanded action. BMA challenges the correctness of the district court's remand order.

In general, remand orders issued under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) are not reviewable by appeal or writ of mandamus. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1988); Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 342-43, 96 S.Ct. 584, 588-89, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976); Farm Credit Bank v. Finstrom, 888 F.2d 559 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam). This is true "whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by an appellate court." Thermtron, 423 U.S. at 351, 96 S.Ct. at 593. Although there are some exceptions to the general rule immunizing remand orders from review, see, e.g., id. at 345-46, 351, 96 S.Ct. at 590-91, 593 (remand based on grounds outside § 1447(c)); In re Resolution Trust Corp., 888 F.2d 57, 58-59 (8th Cir.1989) (review authorized by another statute); In re Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 857 F.2d 1190, 1193 (8th Cir.1988) (substantive ruling on federal law that binds the state court), none of the exceptions apply in this case. Because the district court's order is based on a lack of federal question jurisdiction, the remand order is unreviewable. National City Bank v Coopers & Lybrand, 802 F.2d 990, 993 (8th Cir.1986).

BMA also contends the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to resolve its doubts about federal jurisdiction. See Deibler v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Local Union 23, 973 F.2d 206, 209 (3d Cir.1992) (existence of ERISA plan is factual question). We disagree. As the party seeking removal and opposing remand, BMA had the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. Bor-Son Bldg....

To continue reading

Request your trial
640 cases
  • In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions, No. MDL 1421. CIV.A. 01-MD-1421.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • June 21, 2002
    ...S.Ct. 35, 66 L.Ed. 144 (1921)). "If federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is necessary." Id. (citing In re Business Men's Assur. Co. of America, 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir.1993)); see also Cheshire, 758 F.Supp. at Recognizing that the complaint does not on its face allege any federal c......
  • Amundson & Assoc. Art v. Nat. Council On Comp. Ins.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1997
    ...Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir.1993); Gafford v. General Elec. Co. ., 997 F.2d 150, 160 (6th Cir.1993); In re Business Men's Assurance Co., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Plaintiff's prayer for damages is ambiguous, in that it specificall......
  • Hanna v. Fleetguard, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • August 23, 1995
    ...Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3739 (2d ed. 1985 & Supp.1995); see also Amoco Oil Co., 883 F.Supp. at 407; In re Business Men's Assurance Co. of America, 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir.1993) (burden is on defendant to establish jurisdiction and district court must resolve all doubts in favor of rema......
  • Cedarpids, Inc. v. Chicago, Central & Pacific R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • May 21, 2003
    ...The party seeking removal and opposing remand has the burden of estabhshing subject matter jurisdiction, see In re Business Men's Assur. Co. of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir.1993), and the court's removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Clarity and Clarification: Grable Federal Questions in the Eyes of Their Beholders
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 91, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993) (doubts about removal are resolved in favor of remand); In re Bus. Men's Assurance Co. of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted) ("The district court was required to resolve all doubts about federal jurisdiction in favor of remand.......

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