Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles, No. 11139.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MATHEWS, BONE, and ORR, Circuit |
| Citation | 165 ALR 1068,154 F.2d 884 |
| Docket Number | No. 11139. |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1946 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS. CO. v. FOWLES. |
165 ALR 1068, 154 F.2d 884 (1946)
COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS. CO.
v.
FOWLES.
No. 11139.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 17, 1946.
William J. Madden and Ryan, Askren & Mathewson, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
June Fowles and C. W. Halverson, both of Yakima, Wash., for appellee.
Before MATHEWS, BONE, and ORR, Circuit Judges.
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
An action for a declaratory judgment was brought by appellee, Leslie O. Fowles, a citizen of Washington, against appellant, Commercial Casualty Insurance Company, a New Jersey corporation, in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Washington. The action was commenced on October 11, 1944. An amended complaint, hereafter called the complaint, was filed on January 16, 1945. Appellant filed a so-called demurrer and a so-called motion to quash the complaint and the service thereof. The so-called demurrer was overruled, and the so-called motion to quash was denied.1 Appellant answered, appellee replied, trial was had, and judgment was entered in favor of appellee. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The question is whether the District Court had jurisdiction over the subject
The District Court's jurisdiction was invoked on the ground that the matter in controversy exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000 and was between citizens of different States.4 No other ground of jurisdiction was asserted. Admittedly, the matter in controversy was between citizens of different States. What we have to determine is whether it exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000. To determine that question, we examine the complaint.
The complaint alleged that on or about May 4, 1937, in consideration of a semiannual premium of $10.20, appellant issued an insurance policy to appellee, and that, by virtue of renewals thereof, the policy was in full force and effect at all subsequent times mentioned in the complaint. A copy of the policy was attached to and made part of the complaint. The policy was dated May 5, 1937. Appellant thereby insured appellee "against loss resulting, directly and independently of all other causes, from accidental bodily injury," as provided in the policy. The policy specified a weekly accident indemnity of $25 and provided:
"Total loss of time. * * * If such injury * * * shall within two weeks from the date of the accident cause continuous total disability, and prevent the insured appellee from performing any and every duty pertaining to his occupation, the Company appellant will pay him the weekly accident indemnity above specified, for the period of such disability.
"Partial loss of time. * * * If such injury shall, commencing any time within two weeks from the date of accident or immediately following total disability, prevent the insured from performing one or more material duties pertaining to his occupation, the Company will pay one-half of the above specified weekly accident indemnity for the period of such continuous partial disability, but not to exceed a period of 52 consecutive weeks. * * *
"If such injury to the insured shall entitle him to weekly indemnity under the terms of this policy and within 90 days from the commencement of disability shall necessitate treatment and residence in a hospital, the Company will pay, in addition to the indemnity otherwise provided, for a period not exceeding 15 consecutive weeks, during which time the insured shall be necessarily confined in the hospital, the amount for hospital expenses,5 but not exceeding per week the amount payable hereunder as single weekly indemnity. * * *"
The complaint alleged, in substance and effect, that on April 14, 1943 — 78 weeks before the action was commenced — appellee sustained accidental bodily injuries which, since that date, had caused him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corporation of America, No. 9184.
...that a case is brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act is not sufficient. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles, 9 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 884, 885, 165 A. L.R. 1068; cf. Hull v. Burr, 234 U.S. 712, 720, 34 S.Ct. 892, 58 L.Ed. 1587; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U.S. 144, at page 147, 36 S.Ct. ......
-
Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co, No. 478
...5 Cir., 154 F.2d 950; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Greenfield, 5 Cir., 154 F.2d 953; Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles, 9 Cir., 154 F.2d 884, 165 A.L.R. 1068; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Moyle, 4 Cir., 116 F.2d 434. That the Declaratory Judgments Act in no way affects the jurisdic......
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Atlanta Metallic Casket Co., No. 14026.
...Cir., 109 F.2d 372, 373; Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. Mayfield, 5 Cir., 152 F.2d 956, 957; Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles, 9 Cir., 154 F.2d 884, 886, 165 A.L.R. 1068; Boesenberg v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 245, 141 A.L.R. 565; see also 14 Am.Jur., Courts, Sec. 168......
-
Brown v. Wood, No. 6801
...v. Stamm, 145 F.2d 487 (5th CCA 1944); Fowles v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 59 F.Supp. 693 (E.D.Wash.1945), reversed on other grounds, 154 F.2d 884 (9th CCA The trial court, as its second reason for not applying the relation back doctrine, found that the operations were separate transact......
-
Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corporation of America, No. 9184.
...that a case is brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act is not sufficient. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles, 9 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 884, 885, 165 A. L.R. 1068; cf. Hull v. Burr, 234 U.S. 712, 720, 34 S.Ct. 892, 58 L.Ed. 1587; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U.S. 144, at page 147, 36 S.Ct. ......
-
Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co, No. 478
...5 Cir., 154 F.2d 950; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Greenfield, 5 Cir., 154 F.2d 953; Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles, 9 Cir., 154 F.2d 884, 165 A.L.R. 1068; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Moyle, 4 Cir., 116 F.2d 434. That the Declaratory Judgments Act in no way affects the jurisdic......
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Atlanta Metallic Casket Co., No. 14026.
...Cir., 109 F.2d 372, 373; Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. Mayfield, 5 Cir., 152 F.2d 956, 957; Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles, 9 Cir., 154 F.2d 884, 886, 165 A.L.R. 1068; Boesenberg v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 245, 141 A.L.R. 565; see also 14 Am.Jur., Courts, Sec. 168......
-
Brown v. Wood, No. 6801
...v. Stamm, 145 F.2d 487 (5th CCA 1944); Fowles v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 59 F.Supp. 693 (E.D.Wash.1945), reversed on other grounds, 154 F.2d 884 (9th CCA The trial court, as its second reason for not applying the relation back doctrine, found that the operations were separate transact......