FIREMAN'S FUND INS. v. Bell Helicopter Textron

• Decision Date: 17 June 1987
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 3-86-780.
• Citation: 667 F. Supp. 583
• Parties: FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC. v. ROBERT M. SIMS CO., Associated Aviation Underwriters, University of Tennessee and University of Tennessee Medical Center.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

667 F. Supp. 583

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC. v. ROBERT M. SIMS CO., Associated Aviation Underwriters, University of Tennessee and University of Tennessee Medical Center.

Civ. No. 3-86-780.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, N.D.

June 17, 1987.

Foster D. Arnett and Michael Fitzpatric of Arnett, Draper and Hagood, Knoxville, Tenn., for Fireman's Fund and Associated Underwriters.

Johnathan H. Burnett and Ted White, Knoxville, Tenn., for Bell Helicopter Textron of Hodges Doughty & Carson.

Donelson M. Leake, Knoxville, Tenn., for University of Tennessee.

R. Franklin Norton and Gary Spangler, of Norton & Luhn, Knoxville, Tenn., for Robert Sims Co.

ORDER

HULL, Chief Judge.

This is an indemnity action in which Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Fireman's seeks to recover the $975,000 it paid to Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Bell and the University of Tennessee University under a contract of insurance when a Bell helicopter that had been leased to the University's Medical Center crashed and burned. Bell has filed a third-party complaint against the University and others alleging, inter alia, that the crash was caused by negligence on the part of the University's pilot and that the University breached its agreement to obtain certain insurance coverage. This action is now before the Court on the University's unopposed motion to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Doc. 10.

In support of its motion, the University contends that this action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment provides:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity ... against one state by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

It is well established that a state cannot be sued in federal court by her own citizens or citizens of another state in the absence of unequivocally expressed consent. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 907-908, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). The University has been held to be an agency of the State of Tennessee and therefore immune from suit except to the extent that it has consented to be sued. Carlson v. Highter, 612 F.Supp. 603, 604-605 (D.Tenn.1985). The third-party plaintiff has also admitted in its complaint that the University of Tennessee Medical Center is a state entity Doc. 5, p. 10, and it too is clothed with sovereign immunity. See Greenhill v. Carpenter, 718 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tenn.App.1986).

Therefore, the question before the Court...