UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 01-60835

Summary Calendar

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

KATIE FAIR BEASLEY

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60836

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

DWAYNE BROWN

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60837

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees
2

v.

BETTY BURNETT

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60838

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

ORA CAIN

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60839

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

MELISSA CARTER

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60840

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.
3

ZINNIE MAE COLLINS

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60841

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

JESSIE COLVIN

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60842

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

MATTIE LEE CONNER

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60843

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

J C DOSS
4

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60850

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

WILLIAM DAVIS

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60851

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LEONARD CHARLES NAYLOR

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60853

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LOUISE HARRELL

Defendant - Appellant.
5

__________________

No. 01-60854

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

KAREN HARRIS

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60855

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

MARGARET WATT HARRISON

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60856

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

EDDIE HEARD; TORSHA HEARD

Defendants - Appellants.

__________________
6

No. 01-60857

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

JACQUELINE HICKS-RANDLE

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60858

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

EMMA HILL

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60859

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LOUISE HOWARD

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60860
7

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

BOBBY C JOHNSON; LARRY JOHNSON

Defendants - Appellants.

__________________

No. 01-60861

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

ARETHA CLARK JORDAN; JAMES M JORDAN

Defendants - Appellants.

__________________

No. 01-60862

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

KAREN BOYD MCFARLAND; JORDAN T MCFARLAND

Defendants - Appellants.

__________________

No. 01-60863

__________________
8

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

ROSIE MARTIN

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60864

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

THALMUS R MORGAN

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60866

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

KATHY MOSIER

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60867

__________________
9

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

BOBBY NASH

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60868

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

REBECCA NAYLOR

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60869

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

UNDRA SAWYER

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60870

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
10

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

DELOIS SLEDGE

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60871

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LINDA FAYE SMITH

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60872

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

PRESTON TALLIE

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60873

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
11

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LEXIE TATE

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60874

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LEROY WATT

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60875

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LES WILBON

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60876

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

12

v.

ARTHUR LEE WILLIAMS

Defendant - Appellant.

__________________

No. 01-60877

__________________

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LAKIESHA YOUNG

Defendant - Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen

1:00-CV-375-D-A

______________________________________________

May 22, 2002

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants Katie Beasley, Dwayne Brown, Betty Burnett, Ora

Cain, Melissa Carter, Zinne Mae Collins, Jessie Colvin, Mattie Lee

Conner, J.C. Doss, William Davis, Leonard Charles Naylor, Louise

Harrell, Karen Harris, Margaret Watt Harrison, Eddie Heard, Torsha
13

Heard, Jacqueline Hicks-Randle, Emma Hill, Louise Howard, Bobby

Johnson, Larry Johnson, Aretha Clark-Jordan, James Jordan, Rosie

Martin, Karen Boyd McFarland, James McFarland, Thalmus Morgan,

Kathy Mosier, Bobby Nash, Rebecca Naylor, Undra Sawyer, Deloise

Sledge, Linda Faye Smith, Preston Tallie, Lexie Tate, Leroy Watt,

Les Wilbon, Arthur Lee Williams and Lakiesha Young (collectively

“Beasley”) filed suit against Appellees American Heritage Life

Insurance Company and First Colonial Insurance Company in

Mississippi state court (collectively “Heritage”). Heritage then

filed the instant actions pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, seeking to stay

the state court proceedings and compel arbitration. In separate

orders, the district courts for the Northern and Southern districts

of Mississippi granted Heritage this relief. Beasley appeals and

we affirm.

DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent

jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate

claims. It is incumbent on all federal courts to dismiss an action

whenever it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.

This is the first principle of federal jurisdiction.” Stockman v.

Fed. Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation

omitted). As the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Beasely

bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is proper. Id.
2We express no opinion on the question whether the district

court had discretion to enter such a stay.

14

9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) provides jurisdiction over appeals from

“final decision[s] with respect to an arbitration.” Interpreting

9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) in Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S.

79 (2000), the Supreme Court held that Congress intended the term

final decision in Section 16(a)(3) to have its ordinary meaning, to

wit, “a decision that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves

nothing more for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Id. at

86. Here, the only issue before the district court was whether to

compel arbitration. When it did so, there was nothing more for it

to do but execute judgment.

Heritage contends that the district court stayed the federal

action and that therefore the order compelling arbitration was not

final. See Randolph, 531 U.S. at 87 n.2 (“Had the District Court

entered a stay instead of a dismissal in this case, that order

would not be appealable.”).2 This factual contention is not

supported by the record. Heritage did not request a stay of the

federal proceedings and the district court order does not provide

for one; because, unlike in Randolph, the federal action did not

contain any substantive claims, there was nothing for the district

courts to dismiss. Accordingly, we conclude that we have

jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

B. McCarran-Ferguson Act

Beasely contends that section two of the Federal Arbitration
3Apparently this is no longer the policy of the Commissioner

of Insurance.

15

Act (the “FAA”) has been reverse preempted. See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (“A

written provision in any...contract...to settle by arbitration a

controversy thereafter arising out of such contract...shall be

valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as

exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”).

In so arguing, Beasely relies on the McCarran-Ferguson act and a

declaration of the Commissioner of Insurance for the Mississippi

Insurance Department, which indicates that it was the policy of the

Mississippi Insurance Department to withhold its approval from

insurance policies containing arbitration clauses.3

The district courts’ conclusions that the FAA, as applied to

insurance contracts, has not been reverse preempted by the

McCarran-Ferguson Act in Mississippi is a legal question we review

de novo. See e.g., Moore v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co, 267 F.3d

1209, 1220 (11th Cir. 2001). “By its terms, the [McCarran-Ferguson

Act] permits a state law to reverse pre-empt a federal statute only

if: (1) the federal statute does not specifically relate to the

‘business of insurance,’ (2) the state law was enacted for the

‘purpose of regulating the business of insurance,’ and (3) the

federal statute operates to ‘invalidate, impair, or supersede’ the

state law. There is no question that the FAA does not relate

specifically to the business of insurance. Thus, we need only
4 Section 83-53-29 provides: “The commissioner may, after

notice and hearing, issue any rules and regulations that he deems

necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter or to

eliminate devices or plans designed to avoid or render ineffective

the provisions of this chapter. The commissioner may require such

information as is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of this

chapter. All rules and regulations adopted and promulgated

pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the Mississippi

Administrative Procedures Law.”

5Section 83-53-29 provides, in pertinent part: “All policies,

certificates of insurance, notices of proposed insurance,

applications for insurance, endorsements and riders delivered or

issued for delivery in this state, and the schedules of premium

rates pertaining thereto, shall be filed with the commissioner for

his approval prior to use. If after filing, the commissioner

notifies the insurer that the form is disapproved, it is unlawful

for the insurer to issue or use the form.” 

16

address the last two requirements.” Munich Am. Reinsurance Co. v.

Crawford, 141 F.3d 585, 590 (5th Cir. 1998).

The only enactments identified by Beasely in support of her

contention that the FAA has been reverse-preempted are Miss. Code.

Ann. § 83-53-294 and Miss. Code. Ann. § 83-53-15.5 Neither of these

statutes address the propriety of arbitration clauses in insurance

contracts, they are simply general statutes vesting regulatory

authority over insurance in the Commissioner of Insurance.

Clearly, the FAA does not directly impair either of these statutes.

A conclusion that these general statutes reverse-preempted the FAA

would be equivalent to a conclusion that all federal laws which

could potentially indirectly affect the regulation of insurance

have been preempted. Beasely provides no argument or authority
17

supporting such a sweeping result. 

As noted above, Beasely appears to rely on a declaration from

the Commissioner of Insurance, indicating that it was his policy to

withhold his approval from insurance forms containing arbitration

clauses. As an initial matter, it is undisputed that the

arbitration clause at issue was not in an insurance contract, it

was in a loan agreement. Nonetheless language in the McCarranFerguson Act evinces Congress’ unambiguous intent to accord

reverse-preemptive effect solely to “enact[ed]” state law. Beasely

has provided no argument or authority to the contrary.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing analysis, we AFFIRM.