Lumbermen Mutual Casualty Company v. Elbert

Decision Date06 December 1954
Docket NumberNo. 11,11
Citation99 L.Ed. 59,348 U.S. 48,75 S.Ct. 151
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr.Charles L. Mayer, Shreveport, La., for petitioner.

Messrs. John M. Madison, Whitfield Jack, Shrevoport, La., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the Louisiana direct action statute. This Court has today had occasion to test that statute against certain claims of unconstitutionality, Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U.S. 66, 75 S.Ct. 166.1 Questions are raised here involving the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts in cases arising under the statute.

Respondent, a citizen of Louisiana, was injured in an automobile accident at Shreveport, Louisiana, allegedly because of the negligence of Mrs. S. W. Bowen, also a Louisiana citizen. Petitioner, an Illinois corporation, had issued a public liability policy to Mr. Bowen insuring him and members of his household against claims arising from their negligent operation of the family car. The policy was applied for, issued, and delivered within the State of Louisiana. Petitioner was certificated to do business in Louisiana and had, as a legal prerequisite thereto, consented in writing to be sued directly for damages sustained in Louisiana accidents involving its policyholders.

The pertinent portion of the direct action statute provides:

'The injured person or his or her heirs, at their option, shall have a right of direct action against the insurer within the terms and limits of the policy in the parish where the accident or injury occurred or in the parish where the insured has his domicile, and said action may be brought against the insurer alone or against both the insured and the insurer, jointly and in solido.' LSA Rev.Stat., Tit. 22, § 655. (Italics added.)

Pursuant to this provision, respondent brought this action against petitioner in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging diversity of citizenship and damages in excess of $3,000. Mrs. Bowen, the alleged tortfeasor, was not made a codefendant. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction; the district judge granted the motion. 107 F.Supp. 299, 108 F.Supp. 157. The Court of Appeals, 201 F.2d 500; 202 F.2d 744, reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for trial, one judge dissenting from the denial of a petition for rehearing. From that decision, this Court granted certiorari, 347 U.S. 965, 74 S.Ct. 773. Thus, the sole question to be decided is whether the United States District Court in Louisiana has jurisdiction over this suit for damages brought under the direct action statute against the wrongdoer's insurer alone, where diversity of citizenship exists between the complainant and the defendant insurer but not between the complainant and the wrongdoer.

Section 1332(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a), reads as follows:

'The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and is between:

'(1) Citizens of different States * * *.'

It is petitioner's contention that the 'matter in controversy' here is the underlying tort liability of the alleged wrongdoer. If this were true, of course, no diversity of citizenship would exist between respondent and Mrs Bowen, as the real party-defendant in interest. But the Louisiana courts have differentiated between actions brought by an injured party against the insurer alone and those brought against either the tortfeasor alone or together with the insurer. In the former action, the insurer is foreclosed from asserting defenses such as coverture, normally available to the tortfeasor. Edwards v. Royalty Indemnity Co., 182 La. 171, 161 So. 191. Similarly, the insurer is severely restricted in advancing technical defenses based upon the terms of the policy, such as a failure of notice, when the injured party brings a direct action. Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 211 La. 19, 29 So.2d 177. While either type of action encompasses proof of the tortfeasor's negligence, in the separate suit against the insurer a plaintiff must also establish liability under the policy. The Louisiana courts have characterized the statute as creating a separate and distinct cause of action against the insurer which an injured party may elect in lieu of his action against the tortfeasor. West v. Monroe Bakery, 217 La. 189, 46 So.2d 122; Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., supra.

Petitioner is therefore not merely a nominal defendant but is the real party in interest here. This conclusion to disregard the tortfeasor's citizenship in the instant case for purposes of federal jurisdiction is fortified by cases honoring the states' characterization of a guardian or other fiduciary as determinative of the real party in interest in federal litigation. New Orleans v. Gaines's Administrator, 138 U.S. 595, 11 S.Ct. 428, 34 L.Ed. 1102; Mexican Central R. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U.S. 429, 23 S.Ct. 211, 47 L.Ed. 245. There is even greater justification for disregarding the tortfeasor's citizenship here than for disregarding the citizenship of a beneficiary since the insurer unlike a fiduciary—has a direct financial interest in the outcome of this litigation.

Petitioner next asserts that the tortfeasor is an indispensable party to this litigation, and that failure to join her as a defendant deprives the federal court of jurisdiction. Clearly under the Louisiana statute and practice the argument has no merit.2 And the circumstances which have led the federal courts to findings of indispensability are not present here. In Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 139, 15 L.Ed. 158, indispensable parties were defined as 'Persons who not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.'3 The tortfeasor in a Louisiana direct action against the insurer is not such a person. The state has created an optional right to proceed directly against the insurer; by bringing the action against petitioner, respondent has apparently abandoned her action against the tortfeasor.4 See Miller v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 199 La. 155, 526, 6 So.2d 646, 649. Thus a complete disposition of the entire claim may be made in this one action, without injustice to any of the participants.

Finally, petitioner contends that the federal courts should decline, as a matter of discretion, to exercise their jurisdiction over suits against an insurer alone. This argument is based upon the differing standards of review on appeal of a jury verdict in the Louisiana and federal courts.5 Petitioner relies upon Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424, as authority for the suggested discretionary refusal to exercise jurisdiction.6 But in Burford, jurisdiction was declined to avoid a potential interference with a state's administrative policy-making process, a consideration not present here. Moreover, traditional equitable authority, not available here, was relied upon to justify the holding.

The language of the congressional grant of jurisdiction to the lower courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a), is clear, and this case seems to us to fall squarely within the provision. In Louisiana the practice of bringing direct actions in the federal courts has long been recognized. See e.g., New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Soileau, 5 Cir., 167 F.2d 767, 6 A.L.R.2d 128, certiorari denied, 335 U.S. 822, 69 S.Ct. 45, 93 L.Ed. 376; Bankers Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Green, 5 Cir., 181 F.2d 1; Belanger v. Great American Indemnity Co., 5 Cir., 188 F.2d 196. Neither federal nor Louisiana law suggests any reason to disturb this practice. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.


Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, concurring.

Not deeming it appropriate now to question Meredith v. City of Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 64 S.Ct. 7, 88 L.Ed. 9, I join the Court's opinion. But our holding results in such a glaring perversion of the purpose to which the original grant of diversity jurisdiction was directed that it ought not to go without comment, as further proof of the mounting mischief inflicted on the federal judicial system by the unjustifiable continuance of diversity jurisdiction.

The stuff of diversity jurisdiction is state litigation. The availability of federal tribunals for controversies concerning matters which in themselves are outside federal power and exclusively within state authority, is the essence of a jurisdiction solely resting on the fact that a plaintiff and a defendant are citizens of different States. The power of Congress to confer such jurisdiction was based on the desire of the Framers to assure out-of-state litigants courts free from susceptibility to potential local bias. That the supposed justification for this fear was not rooted in weighty experience is attested by the fact that so ardent a nationalist as Marshall gave that proposal of the Philadelphia Convention only tepid support in the Virginia Convention. 3 Elliot's Debates 556 (1891). But in any event, whatever 'fears and apprehensions'* were entertained by the Framers and ratifiers, there was fear that parochial prejudice by the citizens of one State toward those of another, as well as toward aliens, would lead to unjust treatment of citizens of other States and foreign countries.

Such was the reason for enabling a citizen of one State to press a claim or stand on a defense, wholly state-created, against a citizen of another in a federal court of the latter's State. The abuses to which this opportunity was put...

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 cases
  • Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1954
    ...companies that have issued policies contracting to pay liabilities imposed on persons who inflict injury. Cf. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 151. This is such a direct action brought by the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Watson, in a Louisiana state court claimin......
  • Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 11, 1962
    ...a new liability, created by it, wholly independent of the contractual duty to the insured, see Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 51, 75 S.Ct. 151, 99 L.Ed. 59 (1954), and differing from the latter in many essential respects, see Collins v. American Automobile Ins. Co.,......
  • Collins v. American Automobile Insurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 14, 1956
    ...matter. Hearings on the motions were adjourned pending decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 151, 99 L.Ed. 59, and Watson v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., 348 U.S. 66, 75 S.Ct. 166, 99 L.Ed. 74, both of which cas......
  • State ex rel. Peterson v. District Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., 5242
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1980
    ...option that was lacking absent the subrogation. In support of this argument, the State cites Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 151, 99 L.Ed. 59 (1954). Although that case involved consideration of Louisiana's direct-action statute allowing a tort plaintiff to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The Class Action Fairness Act in perspective: the old and the new in federal jurisdictional reform.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 156 No. 6, June 2008
    • June 1, 2008
    ...recovery for the insured's alleged wrongdoing but brought only against his or her insurance company. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 52 (1954). At least two states, Wisconsin and Louisiana, had "direct action" statutes that encouraged such suits. See Donald T. Weckstein, T......
  • National "harmony": an Inter-branch Constitutional Principle and Its Application to Diversity Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 93, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...and the Politics of the Federal Courts in Twentieth-Century America 144-45 (2000). 42. See, e.g., Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 54 (1954) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 336 (1943) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). See also Felix Frankfu......
  • Rights of Terminated Employees: Expanding Remedies
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 21-8, August 1992
    • Invalid date
    ...1964). 26. Sen. Report 1830 (1958), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 3104--06. 27. Id., citing, Mutual Casualty Co. v. Florence R. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 60 (1954). 28. See, e.g., Lampe v. Presbyterian Medical Center, 590 P.2d 513, 515--16 (Colo.App. 1978); Pittman, supra, note 7 at 1385. Colum......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT