Stockman v. Reliance Life Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.
| Decision Date | 27 July 1939 |
| Citation | 28 F. Supp. 446 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | STOCKMAN v. RELIANCE LIFE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA. |
W. H. Nicholson, of Greenwood, S. C., for plaintiff.
Edward L. Craig, of Columbia, S. C., for defendant.
Plaintiff moves to remand this case to the court of common pleas for Greenwood County from which it was removed to this court upon the petition of the defendant.
The action is for a recovery under the terms of a $5,000 life insurance policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, containing among other promises, the agreement to pay to the insured the sum of $50 per month in the event of total and permanent disability during the continuance of such disability, and to waive premiums during the period that the insured remains so disabled. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled on August 1, 1938, and has remained so since that date; that the defendant has failed and refused to recognize the said disability and to make the payments provided for in the policy; and that under the terms of the policy the insured is entitled to recover $50 per month from August 1, 1938, as well as the return of the premium of $228.65, due March 3, 1939.
In due time the defendant filed its petition and bond for removal to this court showing diversity of citizenship and alleging that the matter and amount in dispute in the suit exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000; that if plaintiff's claim is approved it will be necessary for the defendant to set up a reserve of $5,172, and that such reserve is a "valuable liability" to be protected and defended by the defendant. The plaintiff has duly moved to remand the cause to the state court, but has not traversed the allegations of the petition. Diversity of citizenship is admitted; the validity of the policy is not at issue; and the amount demanded in the complaint is less than the jurisdictional amount. 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (1). The sole question for decision, therefore, is whether defendant's untraversed allegation in its removal petition that defendant, in case of plaintiff's recovery, will be required to set up a reserve of $5,172, is the test of the value of the matter in controversy.
The federal statute gives this court jurisdiction in cases of diverse citizenship where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000. 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1). The Supreme Court, in speaking of this statute, recently declared: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Button v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...v. Massachusetts Life Ins. Co., D.C., 21 F.Supp. 166; Huey v. Prudential Life Ins. Co., D.C., 23 F.Supp. 708; Stockman v. Reliance Life Ins. Co., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 446; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wechsler, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 721; Asbury v. New York Life Ins. Co., D.C., 45 F. Supp. 513. The other vi......
-
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. West
...of this knowledge, Casualty can determine just what course of conduct it should, or must adopt." Stockman v. Reliance Life Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., D.C.W. D.S.C., 1939, 28 F.Supp. 446, and Berlin v. Travelers Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn., D.C.D.Md.1937, 18 F.Supp. 126, relied o......
-
Gates v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.
...Ins. Co., D.C., 18 F.Supp. 820; Edelmann v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., D. C., 21 F.Supp. 209; Stockman v. Reliance Life Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 446; Asbury v. New York Life Ins. Co., D.C., 45 F.Supp. The "matter in controversy" must be measured by the judgm......
-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Moyle
...Equitable Life Assurance Society, 4 Cir., 92 F.2d 406; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Williams, 8 Cir., 88 F.2d 929; Stockman v. Reliance Life Insurance Co., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 446; Small v. New York Life Insurance Co., D.C., 18 F.Supp. 820; Berlin v. Travelers Insurance Co., D.C., 18 F. Supp. 1......