Thorkelson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 15 September 1934 |
Citation | 9 F. Supp. 570 |
Parties | THORKELSON v. ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Albert Running, of St. James, Minn., and Ellsworth, Clinite, Anderson, Dills & Dahl, of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Cobb, Hoke, Benson, Krause & Faegre, of Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.
This matter comes before the court upon the plaintiff's motion to remand.
The case was removed to this court from the District Court of Watonwan county, Minn., on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and that the amount involved exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
The motion to remand is made on the ground "that this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause pending, in that the petition of the defendant for order for removal of said cause to this Court, and the record and pleadings on file in said case do not show that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), either at the time of the commencement of said action or that it will exceed said sum at the probable time of the trial of said cause."
The complaint does not state the amount in controversy, but does show that the plaintiff is claiming that the life insurance policy on which the action is based is in full force and effect, and that the defendant is claiming that the policy has lapsed, and the complaint prays, among other things, that this court decree "that the policy is in full force and effect."
The petition for removal alleges, among other things:
It thus appears from the petition for removal that the defendant claims that the policy had lapsed at the time of the commencement of this suit and that the amount of the reserve which the defendant will be required to set up and maintain as a reserve against liability on account of the policy and disability provision exceeds $3,000 and defendant would be required to waive an annual premium of $156.50 during every year of plaintiff's life,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Button v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., D.C., 20 F.Supp. 779; Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Joseph, D.C., 5 F.Supp. 1003; Thorkelson v. Etna Life Ins. Co., D.C., 9 F.Supp. 570. The views and reasons given by the Court in its opinion in Berlin v. Travelers Insurance Co., supra, appear to me to c......
-
Gates v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.
...cause of action in equity a motion to remand will not be granted, but the Federal Court will retain jurisdiction. See Thorkelson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., D.C., 9 F.Supp. 570; Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, D. C., 27 F.Supp. 735; Enzor v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., D.C., 14 F......
- Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. City of Jackson, Miss.
-
Berlin v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 6049.
...v. New York Life Ins. Co. (C.C.A. 8) 50 F.(2d) 512; Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Joseph (D.C.) 5 F.Supp. 1003, and Thorkelson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (D.C.) 9 F. Supp. 570. But it will be found on examination that in each of these cases, except the Joseph Case, the controversy involved the i......