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 - Appellees2 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 DOSS4 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. 01-608607 __________________
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 FLORIDA11 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 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . 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, Torsha13

Heard, Ja cqueline Hicks-Randle, Emma Hill, Louise Howard, Bobby Johnson, Larry Johnson, Aretha Clark-Jord an, 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, Arthu r Lee Williams and Lakiesha Young (collectively “Beasley”) filed suit against Appel lees American Heritage Life
Insurance Com pany 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 jurisd iction 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 jurisdictio n is lacking. This is the first principle of federal jurisdiction.” S tockman 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. I d.2 We 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 ap peals 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.” I d. 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 dismi ssal 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 Arbitration3 Apparentl y 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 arbitr ation a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract...shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save u pon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any con tract.”).
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 Ins urance Department to withhold its approval from insurance policies containing arbitration clauses. 3 The district courts’ conclusions that the FAA, as applied to insurance contracts, ha s 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 In s. 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 only4 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.”

5 Section 83-53-29 provides, in pertinent part: “All policies, certificates of insurance, notices of proposed insurance, applications for insurance, endorsemen ts 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.” M unich Am. Reinsurance Co. v. Crawford , 141 F.3d 585, 590 (5th Cir. 1998). The only enactments ident ified by Beasely in support of her contention that the FAA has been reverse-preempted are Miss. Code.
Ann. § 83-53-29 4 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 ins urance have been preempted. Beasely provides no argument or authority17

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 Con gress’ 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.