Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 04-2491.
| Decision Date | 04 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-2491.,04-2491. |
| Citation | 410 F.3d 1029 |
| Parties | Brent E. RASMUSSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Kim Rasmussen, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; State Farm Entity, (True and Exact Name Unknown) a part of State Farm Insurance Companies, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Thomas A. Grennan, Omaha, NE, for appellant.
Joseph K. Meusey and Russell A. Westerhold, Omaha, NE, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Brent Rasmussen was severely injured by an uninsured motorist while trying to help another (insured) motorist out of a ditch on Interstate 80 between Lincoln and Omaha in Nebraska. After the accident, Rasmussen successfully claimed $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits from his policy ("the Nebraska policy") with State Farm. He then tried to claim uninsured motorist benefits from the State Farm policy of the motorist whom he was trying to help ("the Michigan policy"). However, both policies provide that if an injured person is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from more than one policy, the total amount received shall not exceed the policy with the highest limit. Both policies limit uninsured motorist benefits to $100,000. Because Rasmussen had already received a $100,000 check, made payable jointly to Rasmussen and his wife Kim, under the Nebraska policy, State Farm denied the claim for benefits under the Michigan policy. Rasmussen brought this diversity suit in federal district court, alleging that he was entitled to $100,000 under the Michigan policy. He now argues that since the Nebraska policy benefit check was made payable jointly to him and his wife (who had asserted injuries arising from loss of consortium), he has not received the entire $100,000, and is entitled to at least $100,000 more in benefits from the Michigan policy.
Resolving an initial choice-of-law dispute, the magistrate judge, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, ruled that Michigan law applied because Michigan had the most significant contacts with this particular contract action.1 Based on Michigan law, Rasmussen could not recover under the Michigan policy because Michigan case law required that there be physical contact between the injured person and the insured car, Rohlman v. Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co., 207 Mich. App. 344, 526 N.W.2d 183, 188 (1994), and that in order for uninsured coverage to attach the insured vehicle must be the instrumentality which produced the injuries, Century Mut. Ins. Co. v. League Gen. Ins. Co., 213 Mich.App. 114, 541 N.W.2d 272, 275 (1995). Because neither circumstance existed in this case, the magistrate judge entered judgment in favor of State Farm.
In his complaint Rasmussen pleaded that he was entitled to at least $100,000 from the Michigan policy. Because we questioned whether Rasmussen could legally recover more than $75,000 under the policy, our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was in doubt. We ordered supplemental briefing by the parties on the amount in controversy issue. See James Neff Kramper Family Farm P'ship v. IBP, Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir.2005) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lipsey v. Seeco, Inc.
...would amount to $498.24. Statutory attorney fees count toward the jurisdictional minimum calculation. Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 410 F.3d 1029, 1031 (8th Cir. 2005). If Lipsey were to succeed on the merits, it would be in the Court's discretion to award a reasonable attorn......
-
Greatamerica Leasing Corp. v. Rohr-Tippe Motors
...or by a state statute, so long as the fee demanded is reasonable." (Footnotes omitted.)). But see Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 410 F.3d 1029, 1031 (8th Cir.2005) ("[O]nly statutory attorney fees count toward the jurisdictional minimum calculation."). It also appears interest......
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Prot. Alliance Llc.
...because this is not a case in which the jurisdictional minimum is greater than the coverage limits. Cf. Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 410 F.3d 1029, 1031 (8th Cir.2005). 5 UCPA made the latter representations to the Arkansas district court in conjunction with an unsuccessful ......
-
Floyd Cnty. Mut. Ins. Ass'n ex rel. McGregor v. CNH Indus. Am. LLC
...requirement if recovery for all but $75,000 or less is barred as a matter of law. See Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. , 410 F.3d 1029, 1031 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the amount-in-controversy requirement was not met because governing law would permit recovery for, at most, on......