Keck v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York
Decision Date | 02 July 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 65 C 174.,65 C 174. |
Citation | 250 F. Supp. 309 |
Parties | Richard B. KECK, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
William J. Costello and John J. Enright, Arvey, Hodes & Mantynband, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Donald N. Clausen and Jacob T. Pincus, Clausen, Hirsh, Miller & Gorman, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
This is a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to meet the $10,000 jurisdictional amount required in diversity actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff insured sues on a health and accident insurance policy which, in relevant part, provides the following benefits:
(1) If plaintiff becomes totally disabled, he receives $50 per week for up to 200 weeks;
(2) If plaintiff is totally disabled for 200 consecutive weeks and is totally and permanently disabled at the end of 200 weeks, he receives a lump sum payment of $30,000;
(3) Lesser payments for partial disability are provided.
Plaintiff, following an accident, received thirty-six weekly $50 payments for total disability. Defendant insurance company then discontinued the $50 weekly payments and commenced paying plaintiff partial disability benefits amounting to $37.50 weekly, claiming that he was no longer totally disabled. Plaintiff accepted those payments, but now sues for the difference between what he has received to date and what he would have received under the total disability provisions. He also seeks a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to total disability benefits for the remainder of the 200 weeks. Neither of these claims, nor both taken together, amount to $10,000, and thus they will not support jurisdiction of this Court.
If the claim for $30,000 can be heard and decided by this Court, the jurisdictional amount has been met. A suit for a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 can be heard only if there is an "actual controversy." The cases involving the problem consistently turn on the distinction between suits based on total repudiation or denial of the validity of a contract, on the one hand, and suits for payments under provisions of a contract still valid and in force. Professor Moore clearly summarizes this point:
A sample of the case law will illustrate the distinction. In Bell v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 78 F.2d 322 (4th Cir. 1935), plaintiff insured sued for a declaratory judgment that a $10,000 policy had not lapsed for non-payment of certain premiums as the insurer had claimed. The Court held that the validity of the entire policy was in issue, not merely certain benefits under it; the "actual controversy" involved the policy itself, and therefore its face value determined the jurisdictional amount. The same rule was followed in Ballard v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 109 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1940), where the insurer sued for a declaratory judgment that certain policies were not in force.
In contrast, in Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Moyle, 116 F.2d 434 (4th Cir. 1940), plaintiff insurance company sued for a declaratory judgment that it was no longer liable under a disability policy because the insured was no longer disabled under the terms of that policy. The Court held that the only controversy in the case was over payments then due, and did not involve claims to future payments under a policy admitted to be valid. The Court said (at page 435):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schwartz v. Victory Container Corp.
...may be counted. See Commercial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fowles, 154 F.2d 884, 165 A. L.R. 1068 (9th Cir. 1946); Keck v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of N. Y., 250 F. Supp. 309 (1965), aff'd 359 F.2d 840 (7th Cir. 1966); Bree v. Mutual Benefit Health and Acc. Ass'n., D.C., 182 F. Supp. 181 CONCLUSION I......
-
Bullis v. National Casualty Company
...for failure to allege facts sufficient to support the requisite jurisdictional amount. See also Keck v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, 250 F.Supp. 309 (N.D.Ill. 1965), 359 F.2d 840 (7th Cir. For the foregoing reasons, and on the file and briefs submitted, and the court being ful......