Page 1 of 8

Case No. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INC. et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case presents an insurance coverage dispute. The plaintiff is the insurer. 

The defendants are the parties who have been sued in either or both of two pending 

state-court lawsuits. The plaintiff has diverse citizenship from all the defendants. 

But the plaintiffs in the state-court lawsuits are state entities that are the 

jurisdictional equivalent of the State of Florida itself. Under binding circuit 

precedent, the state entities are indispensable parties—parties in whose absence the 

action cannot proceed. Because a state is not a citizen of any state, the state entities 

cannot be joined. The action must be dismissed.

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 43 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

Case No. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

I

Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. (“the Coalition”) is a notfor-profit corporation that has been funded partly through state grants. The 

Coalition obtained directors and officers liability coverage from Travelers Casualty 

and Surety Company of America and, upon expiration of the Travelers policy, 

from the plaintiff, Hanover Insurance Company. These were “claims made” 

policies that covered a claim first made during the policy period regardless of when 

the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

The Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida Department of Legal 

Affairs filed a lawsuit in Florida state court against the Coalition, its president 

Tiffany Carr, and a related entity, Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

Foundation Inc., asserting, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and civil 

theft. This order sometimes refers to this as the Attorney General lawsuit. The 

defendants in the Attorney General lawsuit assert it is within the coverage of the 

Travelers or Hanover policy, depending on when the claims are deemed to have 

been made. 

On the same day, the Florida Department of Children and Families filed a 

lawsuit in Florida state court against the Coalition, Ms. Carr, and 11 other 

individuals allegedly associated with the Coalition, asserting, among other things, 

tortious conduct. This order sometimes refers to this as the DCF lawsuit. The 

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 43 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

Case No. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

defendants in the DCF lawsuit assert it is within the coverage of the Travelers or 

Hanover policy, depending on when the claims are deemed to have been made. 

The Attorney General and DCF lawsuits remain pending in state court. 

Meanwhile, Hanover filed this lawsuit seeking a declaration that its policy 

does not cover the Attorney General and DCF lawsuits. Soon after, the Coalition 

filed its own declaratory-judgment action in Florida state court, asserting there is

coverage under the Travelers or Hanover policy. As proper under Florida law, the 

Coalition joined as parties all the plaintiffs and defendants in the Attorney General 

and DCF lawsuits. Hanover removed the action to this court, where it became No. 

4:20cv309. Travelers consented to the removal. Hanover and Travelers are citizens 

of states other than Florida. The other parties, except for the governmental entities, 

are citizens of Florida. Contemporaneously with this order, an order is being 

entered in the Coalition’s declaratory-judgment action remanding the action to 

state court.

II

Hanover has not joined the state entities as parties. And understandably so; 

their presence would destroy jurisdiction. As is well settled, a state is not a citizen 

of any state, so diversity jurisdiction does not exist when a state is a party. See, 

e.g., Moor v. Cnty. of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717-18 (1973) (“There is no 

question that a State is not a ‘citizen’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”); Univ. 

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 43 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

Case No. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411-13 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying 

Eleventh Amendment immunity analysis to determine whether a party is an arm or 

alter ego of the state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction); Craig v. S. Nat. Gas 

Co., 125 F.2d 66, 67 (5th Cir. 1942) (affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction 

because suits by and against “a state agency in the interest of the state” are suits 

against the state, except “where under settled state law, the agency is endowed with 

such a separate and distinct existence” that “its activities are not those of the 

state”); Florida v. Memberworks, Inc., No. 8:03-cv-2267, 2003 WL 27374081 

(M.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2003) (holding the State of Florida was the real party in 

interest when the Florida Office of the Attorney General brought an action for 

fraudulent and deceptive trade practices). 

To be sure, in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Davis, 616 

F.2d 828, 833 (5th Cir. 1980), the Fifth Circuit said, in an opinion now binding in 

the Eleventh, that diversity jurisdiction may exist despite the presence of a state 

agency if it has the power to sue and be sued and “possesses other generally 

recognized corporate powers.” But here the Office of the Attorney General and 

DCF are not acting based on “generally recognized corporate powers.” They are 

acting as state agencies for the purpose of protecting the state’s interests. They are 

the jurisdictional equivalent of the State of Florida.

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 43 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

Case No. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

III

In Ranger Insurance Co. v. United Housing of New Mexico, Inc., 488 F.2d 

682 (5th Cir. 1974), an insurer brought a declaratory-judgment action against its 

insureds asserting its policy did not cover an underlying tort. The insurer invoked 

the court’s diversity jurisdiction and did not join the victims of the underlying tort, 

who were citizens of the same state as the insurer and whose presence thus would 

have defeated diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the action for 

failure to join the victims. Id. at 683. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, squarely holding 

that the victims were indispensable parties in whose absence the action could not 

proceed. Id. at 683-84.

As a decision of the Old Fifth Circuit, Ranger remains binding in the 

Eleventh. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.1981) (en 

banc). And the case is on all fours. Here, as there, an insurer seeks a declaration 

that its policy does not cover an underlying claim. Here, as there, the insurer has 

named as defendants its insureds but not the parties who assert the underlying 

claims—that is, the victims. If the victims were indispensable there, the victims are 

indispensable here. If dismissal was required there because adding the 

indispensable parties would defeat diversity jurisdiction, dismissal is required here

for the same reason. It is that simple.

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 43 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

Case No. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

A more recent unpublished—and thus nonbinding—Eleventh Circuit 

decision reached the same result. See Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. Condor Assocs., 

129 F. App’x 540, 542 (11th Cir. 2005).

In asserting the contrary, Hanover cites Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Sandy 

Lakes Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2005). There the district court 

denied a tort victim’s motion to intervene in a coverage dispute. The case is 

perhaps different from Ranger and the case at bar—the issue was the victim’s 

attempt to intervene, not the insurer’s obligation to join the victim, and the basis 

for the insurer’s denial of coverage was the insured’s failure to cooperate, an issue 

on which the victim’s right to participate was especially attenuated. Still, it is not at 

all clear that these differences should make a difference; reconciling Ranger and 

Mt. Hawley is not easy. This does not, however, help Hanover. When circuit 

decisions conflict, the older one, in this case Ranger, is controlling. See Monaghan 

v. Worldpay US, Inc., 955 F.3d 855, 862 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Our adherence to the 

prior-panel rule is strict, but when there are conflicting prior panel decisions, the 

oldest one controls.”).

IV

The bottom line is this. Under Ranger, this case cannot go forward without 

the claimants in the underlying state-court litigation: the Office of the Attorney 

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 43 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

Case No. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

General and DCF. But their joinder would defeat diversity jurisdiction. The action 

must be dismissed.

This makes it unnecessary to decide whether this action would properly be 

stayed anyway, even if jurisdiction existed, in order to allow the other declaratoryjudgment action—the action that is being remanded to state court—to proceed. It 

bears noting, though, that there would be good grounds to defer to that action. Not 

only are the state entities present in that action, but so is Travelers. See PPG 

Indus., Inc. v. Cont’l Oil, 478 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1973) (affirming a district court’s 

stay of a federal case in deference to a state case that, unlike the federal case,

included all interested parties). It is likely, though perhaps not certain, that the 

claims at issue were made during the Travelers policy period or during the 

Hanover policy period, or perhaps neither, but not both. Adjudicating the issue of 

when the claims were made apparently should be done once, not twice, to avoid 

inconsistent determinations. A single adjudication of this issue would be possible 

in the Coalition’s declaratory-judgment action—the action now going back to state 

court—but not in this action, at least in the absence of Travelers, which is not a 

party.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 43 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

Case No. 4:20cv148-RH-MAF

The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to join an indispensable party and lack of jurisdiction.” 

SO ORDERED on September 1, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 43 Filed 09/01/20 Page 8 of 8