Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02491/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02491-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2491

___________

Brent E. Rasmussen, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

Kim Rasmussen, *

* Appeal from the United States

Plaintiff, * District Court for the District 

* of Nebraska.

v. *

*

State Farm Mutual Automobile *

Insurance Company; State Farm *

Entity, (True and Exact Name *

Unknown) a part of State Farm *

Insurance Companies, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 11, 2005

Filed: June 9, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

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

Appellate Case: 04-2491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Entry ID: 1913501
1

The Michigan policy was issued in Michigan, in the names of the motorist's

parents. The parents lived in Michigan, and their daughter drove the car with their

permission while attending the University of Nebraska–Lincoln at the time of the

accident. The car was licensed and registered in Michigan; the insurance policy was

purchased in Michigan; and the Michigan State Farm agent did not know the car was

being primarily driven in Nebraska while the daughter was at college.

-2-

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., 526 N.W.2d

183, 188 (Mich. App. 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., 541 N.W.2d 272, 275 (Mich. App. 1995). Because

Appellate Case: 04-2491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Entry ID: 1913501
-3-

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) (ordering supplemental briefing when court of appeals,

sua sponte, questioned jurisdictional amount in controversy and the issue had not

previously been raised by the parties or the district court). The party invoking federal

jurisdiction must prove the requisite amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.

After reviewing the supplemental briefs, we conclude that Rasmussen has not

met this burden. Rasmussen may only recover $50,000 from the Michigan policy.

Rasmussen concedes as much in his opening brief when he argues that regardless of

the anti-stacking provisions in both policies, because the $100,000 check was made

payable jointly to him and his wife and deposited into a joint Nebraska bank account,

"[t]he presumption is that they each owned equal parts, i.e., $50,000.00." (Emphasis

added). See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2722(b) (it is presumed that monies deposited in a

joint marital account are contributed in equal amounts by both parties). Rasmussen

essentially argues that he is entitled to another $50,000. And we agree that this would

be all that he is legally entitled to, if anything. 

Additionally, in supplemental briefing, Rasmussen notes that he can exceed the

jurisdictional amount "when attorney fees are considered." But, only statutory

attorney fees count toward the jurisdictional minimum calculation. Crawford v. F.

Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 766 (8th Cir. 2001). Rasmussen, who has the

burden of proving jurisdictional amount, has not established a statutory entitlement

to attorney fees if he prevailed in this action. Accordingly, because Rasmussen

Appellate Case: 04-2491 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Entry ID: 1913501
-4-

cannot prove he is legally entitled to damages greater than the requisite jurisdictional

amount in controversy, we dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of

jurisdiction. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2491 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Entry ID: 1913501