Inman v. MFA Mutual Insurance Company, LR-67-C-18.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. LR-67-C-18.,LR-67-C-18. |
| Citation | 264 F. Supp. 727 |
| Parties | Lattie Marie INMAN, by Orbie Inman, Her Duly Appointed Guardian, Plaintiff, v. MFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
William R. Bullock, of Mobley & Bullock, Russellville, Ark., for plaintiff.
Winslow Drummond, Little Rock, Ark., for defendant.
On plaintiff's motion to remand this cause to the Circuit Court of Yell County, Arkansas, for asserted lack of federal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff and his ward are citizens of Arkansas. Defendant is a Missouri corporation, and has its principal place of business in that State. The amount in controversy is in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The suit is brought on behalf of Lattie Marie Inman, an incompetent, the wife of one David Inman.
The complaint alleges in substance that in 1965 defendant had issued to David Inman a policy of automobile insurance which provided, among other things, socalled "uninsured motorist coverage." It is further alleged that on July 2, 1965, while Mrs. Inman was operating the automobile covered by the policy, and while she was within the coverage or protection of the policy, she was seriously and permanently injured by the negligence of an uninsured motorist, and that defendant is liable under its policy. It is further alleged that as a result of the accident Mrs. Inman was rendered mentally incompetent which necessitated the appointment of a guardian to maintain this action.
The basis for the motion to remand is the 1964 amendment to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c). Act of August 14, 1964, P.L. 88-439, 78 Stat. 445. That amendment provides in substance that in a direct action against a liability insurance company in which the insured is not named as a party defendant, the company shall be deemed for jurisdictional purposes to be a citizen of the same State as the insured as well as of the State of its incorporation and the State in which it has its principal place of business.
Plaintiff's position is that this is a "direct action" against a "liability insurance company," that the insured is not joined as a party defendant, and that the 1964 enactment is applicable.
From the Legislative History of the statute which appears in U.S.Code Congressional & Administrative News 1964, p. 2778 et seq., it is clear that the purpose of Congress in amending section 1332(c) was to ease the case loads of the federal courts in Louisiana and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AJ Kellos Const. Co., Inc. v. Balboa Ins. Co.
...349, 351 (D.Del.1970) (suit by receiver against insurance company held not a direct action under § 1332(c)); Inman v. MFA Mutual Ins. Co., 264 F.Supp. 727, 728 (E.D.Ark.1967) (holding the proviso inapplicable to action by guardian of omnibus insured against own insurance carrier); Carvin v.......
-
Hernandez v. Travelers Insurance Company
...Auto Ins. Co., N.D.Miss.1970, 313 F.Supp. 1349; Bishop v. Allstate Ins. Co., W.D.Ark.1970, 313 F. Supp. 875; Inman v. MFA Mutual Ins. Co., E.D.Ark.1967, 264 F.Supp. 727. 4 Carvin v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., D.C. Tenn.1966, 253 F.Supp. ...
-
Roby v. General Tire & Rubber Co.
...Auto Ins. Co., 313 F.Supp. 1349 (N.D.Miss. 1970); Bishop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 313 F.Supp. 875 (W.D.Ark.1970); Inman v. MFA Mutual Ins. Co., 264 F.Supp. 727 (E.D.Ark.1967). 4 A copy of that said opinion is attached 1 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (c) read as follows: (a) A civil action wherein j......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America
...following its enactment tended to limit its application narrowly. E.g., Henderson, supra; White, supra; Inman v. MFA Mutual Ins. Co., 264 F.Supp. 727 (E.D.Ark.1967); Walker v. Firemans Fund Ins. Co., 260 F.Supp. 95 (D.Mont.1966); Carvin v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 253 F.Supp. 232 (E.D.Te......