Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Temple
Decision Date | 19 September 1944 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1023. |
Citation | 56 F. Supp. 737 |
Parties | MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. TEMPLE. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Montgomery, Fenner & Brown, of New Orleans, La., for complainant.
Richard L. Crowell, of Alexandria, La., for defendant.
The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York as complainant institutes this action against the defendant, seeking a declaratory judgment adjudging and determining the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the payment of disability benefits under a life insurance contract. The contract is based on the condition of a twenty-year pay; the twenty annual full premiums (date of last payment, July 26, 1942) have been paid. Since the year 1932 the insured, upon submitted proof, had been accepted as being totally and permanently disabled under the terms and provisions of the policy; disability benefits were paid to May 1, 1944, at which time, the complainant company having allegedly acquired knowledge on or about March 31, 1944, that the insured was not, and had not been, totally and permanently disabled, discontinued payments. Since the disability has been for over ten years, the disability benefit now to be paid under the policy terms is $100 per month.
Accordingly, the complainant entered court in the manner above described and seeks to maintain jurisdiction in that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $3000, on two grounds: (a) because the insured under the mortality tables has a life expectancy substantially in excess of twenty-nine months, and (b) that in accordance with the requirements of the law of the state of New York complainant is obligated to establish a reserve in excess of $3000 and that this reserve is actually now maintained.
The complaint was filed and the summons issued on the 30th day of June, 1944; therefore, the defendant claims that there were only two months of disability benefits in arrears, and consequently, the only amount at issue in this suit is $200, and that the alleged reserve of $3000, under the law, is unavailing to give jurisdiction; so, pursuantly, the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.
After argument, we surmise that the complainant company, knowing full well the status of the law on jurisdiction in this type of case, based its petition on two cases in particular of the Circuit Court of Appeals for this district, to-wit: Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association v. Fortenberry et al., 5 Cir., 98 F.2d 570, and Ballard et al. v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 5 Cir., 109 F.2d 388, this latter case mainly based on Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, etc., v. Pinkston, 293 U.S. 96, 55 S.Ct. 1, 79 L.Ed. 219. Counsel said that under the two decisions, supra, complainant was entitled to jurisdiction solely on the one point that the product of the number of years of expected life by the sum of $1200 ($100 per month for a year) will exceed the required amount for jurisdiction.
The presiding judge of this court has to repeat what he said in the case of Mitchell v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 441, at page 443:
In the same case, 31 F.Supp. at page 444, we said:
We do not rely on our own decision; we are relying on the decisions quoted, particularly the Wright case, affirmed at 276 U.S. 602, 48 S.Ct. 323, 72 L.Ed. 726. Incidentally, it is a Fifth Circuit case.
The other judge of this court approved of the Mitchell case, supra, in Godfrey v. Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc., D.C., 52 F.Supp. 926.
In addition to the above authorities, we should quote from Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Moyle, et ux., 4 Cir., 116 F.2d 434, at page 435:
The Ballard case was declared against in Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Moyle, supra, in the following language:
The language of the Ballard case is explicit, is strong, and comes from our own circuit 109 F.2d 389: "This claim (from the asserted liability for which the plaintiff asked to be relieved) was alleged to be in excess of $3,000, and, since the insured is only forty-two years of age, has a reasonable life expectancy of many years, and is alleged to be totally and permanently disabled, it appears to us that the value of his claim is not overstated."
The sentence immediately following the above, especially since it contains the word italicized by us, begins to limit the breadth of meaning of the language: "The amount in controversy is the value of his claim which the company is seeking to have cancelled in the court below, not the amounts sued for in the state courts."
What in our opinion takes away most from the apparent meaning of the first quotation above is the list of cases given to support it: Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Pinkston, supra; Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n v. Fortenberry, supra; C. E. Carnes & Co. v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd., 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 739; Rydstrom v. Massachusetts Acc. Co., D.C., 25 F. Supp. 359.
As to the Pinkston case, and its ancestor, Thompson v. Thompson, 226 U.S. 551, 33 S.Ct. 129, 57 L.Ed. 347, Judge Parker in Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Moyle et ux., says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fowles v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co.
...94 F.2d 441, 115 A.L.R. 1486. It has been denied in Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Moyle, 4 Cir., 116 F.2d 434; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Temple, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 737; Edelmann v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., D. C., 21 F.Supp. Unfortunately this is not a question of which dispo......
-
Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles
...New York Life Ins. Co., D.C.E.D.Ky., 45 F.Supp. 513; Button v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., D.C.W.D.Ky., 48 F.Supp. 168; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Temple, D.C.W.D. La., 56 F.Supp. 737. 8 Cohn v. Cities Service Co., 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 687; Ford, Bacon & Davis v. Volentine, 5 Cir., 64 F.2d 800. See, also......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Greenfield
...Company of New York, 5 Cir., 19 F.2d 117; Button v. Mutual Life Insurance Company, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 168; and Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Temple, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 737. The motion of the Defendant to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction should have been sustained. The judgment of th......
-
Guidry v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Civ. A. No. 2813.
...of New York, D. C., 31 F.Supp. 441, and Godfrey v. Brown Paper Mill Co., Inc., D. C., 52 F.Supp. 926, and Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Temple, D. C., 56 F. Supp. 737. See also 18 Tulane Law Review at page 655, and 165 A.L.R. at page 1073. Neither do we feel called upon to analys......