state farm versus jo i purchased reciprocal life insurance policy council i am about to ask you a question you will doubtless view as unfair because you didn't want to be in federal court but my question is whether there is a case or controversy in this case whether there was any business in federal court at all absolutely your honor state farm brought the action i know state farm brought the action but was there a case or controversy within the meaning of article three at george whole your whole argument is that there was never any competing claim correct and that of course leads to my question whether there was a case or controversy case or controversy arises your honor on failure to comply with texas law that's that's not what justified the bringing of this lawsuit failure to pay interest after the inner pleader action is brought does not create a case or controversy which may must exist at a minimum when the lawsuit begins i would agree your honor however honor then it could be even raised today the the couple as i said purchased these reciprocal insurance policies in two thousand and seven that troy was the name beneficiary on her estate she was on his the couple was divorced in august of two thousand and eleven the divorce decree itself provided one hundred percent of the benefits of this insurance policy were to go to detroit it also awarded ownership of jennifer's policy of insurance to troy jennifer died in august thirtieth of twenty twelve my client filed claim for insurance proceeds however they did not tender the funds into the court's registry until june seventeenth twenty thirteen judge is correct and no other claims were ever filed in this case either with state farm or with the interpretation of thirteen thirty five that's correct but thirteen thirty five as you pointed out also states that the delay in payments is the keystone for triggering of the statutory eighteen percent interest penalty and the attorney fees provisions in martina's against states that state farm weighted from obvious spirity of twenty twelve until june seventeenth to tender the funds as we noted state farm had the use of that money for the entire period of time when it should have been paid when they filed the action the policy itself says that it will pay two percent or the statutory interest rate the state requires whichever is greater texas requires eighteen percent when nature it's company delays the cases cited by state farm server and mallory all involved contested claims and that seed and still own the respective policies that isn't the case here villa contractors who which they cited in their attempt at a certain reply brief condemns state farm and join the free use of that money from jennifer's date of death in two thousand and twelve until it paid june seventeenth twenty thirteen the hague case which they cite requires a ninety conditional offer and ready to pay as a substitute however we submit that is no longer good law because martina specifically states thus and ensure that tenders part of the problem policy proceeds must pay penalties only on the remainder that is not tender this of course trumps a for the reasons we submitted to the district court erred in denying mr jonas's request for the eighteen percent interest penalty and attorney's fees the district court allowed two percent it state farm had free use of that money and as we noted the dow industrial average gained twenty two percent during the same period of time thus we ask this court to reverse the decision of the district court on that issue re mandate for calculations of interest attorneys fees and all of the proper relief if the court has no further questions i will reserve the few minutes for  good morning may have pleased the court was there a case for controversy yes there was mr jonas made a claim to state farm claiming that he was the beneficiary of this life insurance policy under texas law mr jonas was not the beneficiary under this policy because to divorce decree did not specifically expressly say he was to be the beneficiary after that after  for the benefit of fowl how would that claim be tenable under texas insurance code eleven zero three point one zero three zero eleven zero three point that's the one that says that if a claim is made on a policy code eleven or three point one zero three gives that to the insurer without the need for it or later and of course there never was any competing claim so they're not only never was competing playing the insurer would have been if i read it correctly would have protected the insurance company had it paid the claim yet i don't think the statute required state farm to pay the claim thirteen thirty five is designed for insurers and  holders who fear duplicate liability as a matter of texas law state farm at no ri have stander your point your honor may the state farm also though file yes lawsuit under diversity jurisdiction not simply under section thirteen thirty five we still have to know whether there was a case or controversy light of the eleven o three point one zero three therefore follows that the court did not have jurisdiction under thirteen thirty five is not perfectly straightforward but the state farm also sued on the basis of diversity just look i'm trying to pin this down you r opponent's brief says that jurisdiction existed under thirteen thirty five correct your brief says that that assertion is complete and correct it is not correct it is transparently false and you now concede that having conceded the opposite in your brief we tried to get jurisdiction straight here and are not helped by statements that on inspection turned out to be false i believe that one state farm one state farm received the order from the test record to actually to posit the final that is not the way thirteen thirty five works its language says jurisdiction exists if two things competing claimants and tender of the money there is no jurisdiction under thirteen thirty five without candy you do not wait for district courts to order you to tender there is no jurisdiction without tenure that's the the the district court in this case correctly ruled that under the texas prop payment statute state farm did not owe penalties under the proper statute because the district court correctly rule that the tender of the funds into the court registry was completed because state farm aid unconditional offer to pay you book and claim thirteen thirty five doesn't say plaintiff has made an offer thirteen thirty five so as the plaintiff has to policy that's correct your honor so what's the basis of the district court's treating deposit and an offer  except that in this case whether the penalties were awarded ball are completely dependent on the texas statute and therefore texas one terming the statute is what guide the district court on the penalty texas law interpreting thirteen thirty five know you're on your right about that right your it may well be that had this year pleader action been filed in texas court as a matter of texas procedural law certain things might have happened but federal procedural law determines just a couple of points going back to judge easter burks opposition or arguments on this i think he's fully correct on that we're in federal court jurisdiction for the federal interplay to reaction requires opposing claims and it also requires the tenure of proceeds neither of which attach or were complied with as to mr jonas being the beneficiary  one of those properties was this policy of insurance he became not only the owner but why change the name beneficiary he was already the name beneficiary and i don't think the law should require someone to go in inch merely changed the name from my name to my name especially when at the point in time he did not have a lawyer and didn't have any legal advice if the court has no f