Railsback v. United States, Civ. No. 290 L.

• Citation: 181 F. Supp. 765
• Decision Date: 19 February 1960
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 290 L.
• Parties: Leona RAILSBACK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska

181 F. Supp. 765

Leona RAILSBACK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a corporation, Defendants.

Civ. No. 290 L.

United States District Court D. Nebraska.

February 19, 1960.

Edward F. Carter, Jr., Lincoln, Neb., for plaintiff.

Wm. E. Morrow, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. for the Dist. of Nebraska, for defendant U. S.

Richard M. Duxbury, Lincoln, Neb., for defendant Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

VAN PELT, District Judge.

The above entitled matter is before the Court on separate motions by the defendant The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Metropolitan) and the defendant United States of America. The motion of the United States is to dismiss the Complaint of the plaintiff, Leona Railsback, as against itself. The motion of Metropolitan seeks to have itself dropped as a party defendant.

Plaintiff brought this action against both defendants to recover the accidental death benefit of $3,000 which she alleges is due her as the beneficiary of Donald W. Railsback, deceased, under a contract of insurance issued pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 2091 et seq.). Plaintiff alleges the payment of the death benefit under the policy.

Defendant Metropolitan supports its motion to drop it as a party defendant with the ground that there has been a misjoinder of parties. Defendant United States supports its motion to dismiss with the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim against it, that the United States has not given its consent to this action and the Court is therefore without jurisdiction, and that there is a misjoinder of parties defendant.

This Court is of the opinion that whether the United States is or is not a party, Metropolitan is an improper party to this action in this court. The amount in controversy does not exceed the $10,000 requirement of § 1332 or § 1331 of Title 28 U.S.C., and the only jurisdictional basis therefore to hold Metropolitan in as a party is its joinder with the United States. However, such joinder is not permissible under the rule laid down in United States v. Sherwood, 1941, 312 U. S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058. Although the rule in that case has been weakened to some extent as applied to other similar statutes, joinder of a private entity with the United States under similar statutes has not been allowed without at least independent jurisdictional facts. Falk v. United States, 6 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 238. The motion of the defendant Metropolitan will therefore be sustained.

This Court has also concluded that the motion of the United States should be sustained. The United States has given only limited consent to suits against it under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act. That consent is set forth at Title 5 U.S.C.A. § 2103, which provides:

"The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, of any civil action or claim against the United States founded upon this chapter."

In negotiating for and procuring a policy of group life insurance for its employees, the United States government acts as an agent and not as the insurer. There is no policy of insurance between the government and the employee. It is clear from a reading of ...