Edelmann v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.

• Decision Date: 13 November 1937
• Docket Number: No. 6190.,6190.
• Parties: EDELMANN v. TRAVELERS INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

21 F. Supp. 209

EDELMANN v. TRAVELERS INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

No. 6190.

District Court, D. Maryland.

November 13, 1937.

Herman M. Moser and Philip Margolis, both of Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

Jesse Slingluff, Jr., William L. Marbury, Jr., and Marbury, Gosnell & Williams, all of Baltimore, Md., for defendant.

CHESNUT, District Judge.

The question now presented is the same as that decided by this court in Berlin v. Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, 18 F.Supp. 126. In this case, as in that, the plaintiff sued at law in a Maryland State Court to recover disability benefits alleged to be due under a life insurance policy; and on the defendant's petition in the state court the case was removed to this court on the ground of diversity of citizenship; and here the plaintiff has promptly moved to remand the case on the ground that the matter in controversy does not exceed the sum or value of three thousand dollars ($3,000) exclusive of interest and costs. United States Code, title 28, § 41(1), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1).

The plaintiff's declaration in its conclusion formally demands $6,000 damages but it appears by simple calculation based on the facts alleged in the declaration that the maximum sum which could be recovered by the plaintiff in this case is less than $3,000 — about $2,800. Defendant's counsel concedes this to be true, but seeks to support the jurisdiction in this court by reason of the untraversed averment in the petition for removal that —

"Said petitioner, by operation of law, requirements of the Insurance Department of the State of Connecticut, and in accordance with sound actuarial principles and practice will be required to set up a reserve in the event the plaintiff should prevail herein, and be required to keep and maintain such reserve in excess of $3,000, which reserve, together with the more particular matters claimed by said plaintiff * * * is the true amount or matter in dispute in said cause."

The amount of damages formally claimed by the plaintiff in the ad damnum clause is not controlling as to the amount in controversy where it clearly appears from the plaintiff's declaration that the maximum amount recoverable in the suit is less than $3,000. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337, 17 L.Ed. 557; Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U.S. 468, 18 S.Ct. 645, 42 L.Ed. 1111; Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Karatz, 262 U.S. 77, 86, 43 S.Ct. 480, 483, 67 L.Ed. 871. I understand this is not disputed by defendant's counsel.

The question here, therefore, is, as it was in the Berlin Case, simply whether the alleged requirement for the maintenance of a reserve shows a sufficient sum in controversy to support the jurisdiction. In the Berlin Case after full consideration the conclusion was reached that it did not. The prior federal cases which had given consideration to the particular point were reviewed and it is unnecessary here to repeat what was then said in discussing the matter both on principle and authority. The only later cases dealing with the same subject that have been called to my attention are Ross v. Travelers Insurance Co., 18 F.Supp. 819, where the district court for the Eastern district of South Carolina followed its former decision in Enzor v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 14 F. Supp. 677, upholding jurisdiction; Small v. New York Life Ins. Co., 18 F.Supp. 820, where the district court for the Northern district of Alabama decided against the jurisdiction after an extensive review of the cases; and Shabotzky v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 21 F.Supp. 166, where Judge Clancy in the Southern District of New York in an opinion dated May 27, 1937, also decided against the jurisdiction.

A few other cases, not directly in point, but thought to have some bearing by analogy on the question, and not previously referred to, have now been called to my attention by counsel for the defendant. Particular reference is made to Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen v. Pinkston, 293 U.S. 96, 55 S.Ct. 1, 79 L.Ed. 219, and Thompson v. Thompson, 226 U.S. 551, 33 S.Ct. 129, 57 L.Ed. 347. In both cases the amount in controversy sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction was found, but both cases are clearly distinguishable both on the facts and reasoning. In the Pinkston Case the plaintiff's bill in equity sought to preserve the integrity of an entire fund of nearly $300,000, in which it was shown that her personal interest considerably exceeded $3,000. The distinction from the present case was expressly made by the court in the sentence in the opinion reading (293 U. S. 96, at page 99, 55 S.Ct. 1, 2, 79 L.Ed. 219):

"This, it will be seen, is not an action at...