FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 6, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1140 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-81164 -CV -D MM SUSAN J. FR IEDMAN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( June 6, 200 5) Before AN DE RSO N and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and OW EN S*, D istrict Judg e, AN DE RSO N, Circuit Judge:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ * Honora ble Wilbur D. Owens, District Judge f or the Middle District of G eorg ia, sitting by desig nation.Fr iedman asse rts that New Y ork L ife ha s violated Fla .Code § 625.65625, which 1 pr ov ide s in

re le va nt p art : (1) . . . an insurer

that offe rs a group hea lth insurance policy may not establish rules for elig ibilit y , including c ontinued elig ibilit y , of an individual to enroll under the terms of the policy based on a

ny of the followinghealth-status-r elated f actor s in relation to the individual or a depe ndent of the individual:(a) Hea lth status. (b) Medica l condition, including phy sical and me ntal illnesses. (c) Claims ex perie nce. ( d) Rece ipt of health ca re. (e) Medica l history . (f) Gene tic information.(g ) Evidenc e of insura bility , including c o n d i t i o n s ar i s i n go u to f

a c t s o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e . ( h ) D i s a b i l i ty.

. . . (4)( a) An insurer that offer s health insuranc e cove rag e may not require any i n d i v i d u a l , a s a c o n d i t i o no f

e n r o l l m e n to r

c o n t i nu e d

e n r o l l m e n tun d e r

th e p o l i c y, to pay a pre mium or contribution that is gre ater than such pre mium or contribution for a

simil arly situated individual enrolled under the policy

on the basis of any

health-status-r elated f

actor in relation to the individual or to an ind ivi du a l e nr oll e d und e r t he po lic y a s a de pe nd e nt o f t

he ind ivi du a l. (b ) T his su

bs e c tio n d oe s n ot: 1. Restrict the amount that an e mploy er ma y be cha rg ed for cover ag e under

a g roup hea lth insurance policy . . . 2 Pl ai nti ff , S usan F ri edm an , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt' s de nia l of he r m oti on t o re m an dt o s t at e c o u rt fo r l ac ko f ju ri s d i ct i o n . Th i s ap p ea l s t ems f ro m Fr i ed m an ’s suit on behalf of herse lf and all those sim ilarly situated against h er insurer, Ne w Y ork L if e In sur an ce Co . F ri edm anc la im s th at he r pr em ium s w er e ra ise d in vio la tio n of

c er ta in s ta tut or

y pr ovi sio ns o f Fl or ida

lawthat w er e, she a sse rt s, inc or por at ed int o he r co ntr ac t w ithN ewY ork L if e. S he se ek s r ei m

bur se m en t of 1 the a lle ge dly

ove rp ai d pr em ium s, de cl ar at or y r el ie f, and an in

j unc tio n a ga ins t co nti nui ng v iol at ionof

F lor ida law . T he c as e w as br ough t i n st at e co urt andAfter denial of F riedman’ s motion t o rema nd, the district court dismissed the 2 complaint pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 6). F riedman a lso appea ls that ruling, but we do not rea ch that issue bec ause w e vac ate on the jur isdictional gr ound. 3 re m ove d by

N ewY ork L if

e on d ive rs ity

gr ound s. 28 U . S. C. S ec . 133 2. B ec au se w e co nc lud e that N ewY ork L if e fa ile d to sa tis fy

the $75 , 000 am ount

in co ntr ove rs y

r equir em en t, w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt w as w ith out div er sity j ur isd ic tio n. 2

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STO RY Fr ie dm anis a m em

be r of the A m er ic anV et er inary Me dic al A sso ci at ion (A V MA ), and h er

he al th p lan is agr oup plan of fe re d to A V MAm em

be rs . A t the tim e of he r en ro llm en t, the re w er e thr ee pr em ium r at ing c la sse s us ed

by the A V M A : S t a n d a r d , S t a n d a r dP l u s an dS t a n d a r dP l u s 2 0 . Du e t o h e r h e a l t h h i s t o ry, Friedm an wa s placed in the Standard Plus 20 rating class at enrollm ent, and her pr em ium w as 20% hig he r than th e St an dard pr em ium r at ing c la ss. A t the ti m e she en ro lle d, S tandard

P lus r at es w er e 10% hig he r than th e St an dard pr em ium r at ing cl as s. S ev er al y ears a ft er she e nr oll ed , N ewY ork L if e ra ise d th e rate s f

or the St an dard P lus gr oup to 1 5% hig he r than S tandard , and f or S tandard P lus 20 t o 50% hig he r than S tandard . F ri edm an ’ s pr opos ed c la ss i s “ al l A V MAins ur ed s in Florida rated S tandard Plus and/or Standard Plus 20."4

T he sui t w as or igi na lly

br ough t i n th e 15 Jud ic ia l C ir cu it Co urt i n and f or th Palm Beac h County . Ne w Y ork Life rem oved on diversity grounds . Friedm an m ove d f or r em an d to state c ourt, c la im ing that the a m ount in co ntr ove rs y re qui re m en t ha d no t be enm et . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on, a s w el l a s a m oti on f or r ec onsi de ratio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt j udge did not pr ovi de any

r ea soni ng f

or it s de nia l of Fri ed m an ’s m ot io n fo r rem an d t o s ta te co ur t o r he r m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. On ap pe al , N ewY ork L if

e of fe rs thr ee pos sib le ba se s f or af ind ing that the a m ount

in co ntr ove rs y

e xc ee ds $ 75, 000; 1) the a ggr eg at e tot al of the pr em ium

inc re as es f

or w hic h c la ss m em

be rs se ek r ei m bur se m en t e xc ee ds $ 75, 000; 2) the a m ount in co ntr ove rs y

is equa l t o th e fa ce va lue of F ri edm an ' s po lic y , w hic h e xc ee ds $7 5,0 00 ; an d 3 ) th e v al ue of i nju nc ti ve rel ie f to th e p la in ti ffs ex ceed s $ 75 ,00 0.

II. D ISCU SSION Div ers it y is th e o nl y

po te nt ia l b as is forjuri sd ic ti on in th e in st an t ca se . As this Court expl ained in Morrison, v. A llstate Indem . C o., 228 F.3d 1255 (11 Cir. th 2000 ): “ lower federa l courts are e m powere d to hear only

cases f or which there has been a congressional grant of jurisdiction, and once a c ourt determ ines that there ha s be enno g rant tha t c ove rs apart ic ular ca se , the c ourt' s so le r em ai nin g a ct is to5

dis m iss the c as e fo r la ck

of j ur isd ic tio n. ” I d. a t 12 61( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). A s th is Court noted in Kir

kland v. Midland Mortgag e Co. , 243 F. 3d 12 77(11 Cir. 2001 ), th

“ [i ] n r em ova l c as es , the bur de n is on the party w ho s ough t r em ova l t o de m onstrate that f ed er al j ur isd ic tio n e xis ts. Whe re the pla int if f ha s no t pl ea d aspe ci fi c am ount of dam ag es . . . the de fe ndant i s r equir ed to show . . . by

apr ep onde ranc e of

the ev id en ce t ha t t he am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y ” can be sat is fie d. Id . at 1 28 1 n .5 (citations om itted). A . A ggr eg at ion InMo rr iso n, thi s C ourt ou tli ne d th e re le vant f ram ew ork w ithr eg ar ds t o th e aggregation iss ue that is the crux of this case: G en er al ly , if

no s ing le pla int if

f' s c la im sa tis fi es the r equis ite a m ount in controversy , ther e can be no diversity j urisdictio n. H owever , ther e ar e sit ua tio ns i n w hic h m

ult ipl e pla int if

fs have auni fi ed , ind ivi sib le int er es t i n so m e co m

m on f und that i s th e obj ec t of

li tig at ion , perm itting them

to add tog ether, or "aggregate, " their individ ual stake s to r ea chthe am ount in co ntr ove rs y

thr es hol d. A s e xpl ai ne d by th e Supr em e Co ur t i n Zah n v . Int ern at io na l Pape r Co .: Whe n tw o or

m or e pla int if

fs , havin g se parate and dis tin ct de m an ds, uni te f

or c onve nie nc e an d e co nom y in a sin gle sui t, it

is es se nti al that the de m an d of e ac h be of the requisite jurisdictional am ount ; but when several plaintiffs unit e to enforce a single title or right, in which the y have ac om

m on and undi vid ed

int er es t, it

is en ough if their interests collectively equal the j urisdictio nal am ount .6

Z ah n, 414 U . S. 291 a t 29 5, 94 S . Ct . 505 a t 50 8 ( quot ing T ro y Bank o f T ro y , I ndi an a v. G . A . Whit eh ea d & Co . , 222 U . S. 39, 40- 41, 32 S . Ct . 9, 56 L. Ed. 81 (1911 )). D es pit e pe rv as ive c ri tic ism of the "s ep ar at e an d di sti nc t" ve rs us "com m on and un divid ed" distin ction as arcane and confusin g, there appears to be a c omm on thread in the relevant case law –the presence of a"c om m on and undi vid ed

int er es t" is rathe r unc om m on, e xis tin g onlywhen the def

endant owes an obligatio n to the group of plaintiffs as a group and not to the indiv iduals severally . S ee E agle v. A m erican Te l. and Tel. Co., 769 F.2d 541, 546 (9th Cir. 1985 ) ("[ T] he charac ter of the interest asserted depends on the sou rce of plaintiffs' claim s. I f the claim s are der ived from rights that th ey

hold in group statu s, then the c la im s are c om

m on and undi vid ed . I f not , the c la im s are se parate an d di sti nc t. ") ; N at ion al O rg . f or W om env. Mu tua l of

O m ah a In s. Co . , 612 F . Su

pp. 100 , 107 ( D . D . C. 198 5) ( "[ T ] he c as es that a llo w ag gr eg at ionof

te n sp eak of

the pr es en ce of

som e fund t o w hic h a plaintiff class is seeking access [, and] . . . they often involv e an attem pt to enforce a r ight th at belongs to a group."). O ur pr ed ec es sor

c ourt e luc idate d th is p oin t f urthe r in E ag le S tar In s. C o . v . M a l t e s , 3 1 3 F . 2 d7 7 8 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 3 ) , s t a t i n g : " [ T ]h e S up r e me Co urt ha s e vin ce d a

de sir e to g ive astr ic t c onstru ct ionto al le ga tio ns of the j ur isd ic tio na l am ount in co ntr ove rs y , so a s to a llo wa ggr eg at ion onl y in tho se sit

ua tio ns whe re the re is not onl y ac om m on f und fr om which the plaintiffs seek relief , but w here the plaintiffs also have a j oint in terest in that fund, such that if plaintiffs' rights are not affecte d by the rights of co-plaintiffs, then there c an be no aggregation. . . . In other words, the oblig ation to th e plaintiffs m ust be a j oint o ne." I d. at 781; se e al so G ilm anv. BH C S ec s. , I nc . , 104 F . 3d 1 418, 142 4 ( 2d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( " P l a i n t i f

f s i n p a r a d i g m ' c o mmo n f

u n d ' c a s e s a s s e rtc l a i ms to a pie ce of land, atr ust f und, an e state , an in sur an ce pol ic y , ali en , or an it em of c oll at er al , w hic h th ey

c la im a s c om m on o w ne rs or

in w hic h th ey

share ac om

m on i nte re st ari sin g un de r a sin gle ti tle or rig ht ."). Morrison, 228 F.3d at 1262-63 (em phasis add ed in Morrison).7

The M orrison case is sim ilar to the instant case in several re spects. I t inv olv ed ac la ss a ct iona ga ins t i nsur an ce c om pany de fe ndants . T he iss ue w as the $75, 000 am ount

in co ntr ove rs y

and whe the r the c la im s of the c la ss m em

be rs c oul d be a ggr eg at ed

to re ac h th at

thr es hol d. A lso , li ke thi s c as e, the pla int if fs w er e not se ek in g t he face am ou nt of t he po li cy , bu t ra th er were see ki ng a di ffer en t am ou nt . They sough t dam ages for the dim inish ed value of their w recked vehicles af ter repair; in other w ords, they sough t the differe nce in value betwee n pre-w reck va lue and p ost -wre ck

va lue . I n a ddi tio n to the ir dam ag e cl ai m s, the y

a lso sou ght inj unc tiv e re lie f. Appl y ing the pr inc ipl es quo te d a bove , thi s C ourt he ld tha t the na tur e of the r igh t a sse rt ed

w as c ru ci al , and tha t the r igh ts a sse rt ed by the Mor ri son pla int if

fs w er e se parate and d ist inc t and the re fo re c oul d no t be ag gr eg at ed . W e co nc lud e that F ri edm anand the oth er put at ive c la ss m em

be rs have separate and dis tinct claim s, which do n ot consti tute com m on and un divid ed cl ai m s to ac om

m on f und. F ri edm anand e ac h of the oth er pla int if fs e ac h c la im s a right to dam ages, nam ely a right to be reim

bursed for the am ount s that each has overpaid in prem ium s, which overpaym ents they allege violate Florida law . Ea ch pla int if f co uld have br ough t a

se parate sui t. I f pla int if

fs pr ev ai l, e ac h pl ai nti ff

w ill re co ve r pr ec ise ly

the a m ount

of his or he r ove rp ay

m en t ( w he the r in the sam e or8

differe nt am ount s) w ithou t any eff ect on the rights of co-plaintiffs. More over, the re is no c om

m on f und; the pla int if

fs do n ot s ee k di str ibu tio n of the f ac e am ount of the pol ic y ; r athe r, e ac h pl ai nti ff se ek s on ly

r ei m bur se m en t of

the a m ount

he or sh e o ve rp ai d i n p rem iu m s. N ewY ork L if

e ar gue s th at

the re sho uld

be a ggr eg at ionbe ca

use the c la ss m em bers here are seeking the to tality of all of the overchar ged am ount s, such that the y se ek to cr eate af

und fr om w hic h c la ss m em

be rs w ill be ne fi t. W e re

j ec t this argum ent because such a fund is not th e ty pe of com

m on fund which is required fo r ag gr eg at ion . A s th e se co nd c ir cu it not ed in G ilm an : Su cha“ fund” is cr eate d to f ac ili ta te the li tig at ionpr oc es s invir tua lly ev er y c la ss a ct ion , and h as nothin g ne ce ssari ly to do w ithw he the r the plaintiffs shared a pre- existing (pre- litigatio n) interest in the subject of th e li ti ga ti on . U nde r the c la ssi c “ co m

m on f und” c as es , w ha t c ontro ls i s th e na tur e of the r igh t a sse rt ed , not

w he the r suc ce ssf

ul v ind ic at ionof

the r igh t w ill le ad to a sin gle poo l of

m one y that w ill be a llo cate d am ong the pla int if fs . T o c al l any

r ec ove ry that a c la ss m igh t w in a

“ fund” to which the class m em

bers are j ointl y

entitled is “ m erely

added ve rb ag e. Ther e is no fun d. Th e cl ai m rem ai ns on e o n b eh al f of ... se parate ind ivi dua ls f

or the dam ag e suf

fe re d by e ac h du e to the alleged . . . conduct of the defendant.” 104 F. 3d at 14 27 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). S ee Mo rr iso n, 228 F . 3d at 12 64 ( ci tin g G ilm ana s havin g e xpl ai ne d “ co ge ntl y the dif fe re nc e be tw ee n ac om

m on f und pe rm itt ing a ggr eg at ionand the c om m on f und that i s us ua lly

ge ne rate d inany

c la ss9

action”). A s in Gilm an, the c laim s in the ins tant case re m ain separate and dis tinct cl ai m s o f se pa rat e in di vi du al s fo r rei m bu rs em en t o f th e am ou nt each ov erp ai d. Ne w Y ork Life also argues that Friedm an and her putative class m em bers ar e m er e ce rt if

ic at e hol de rs , and tha t the re is onl y one pol ic y

w hic h w as iss ue d by Ne w Y ork Life to AV MA. Indeed, the only ground u pon which NewYork L ife seeks to dist ingu ish Morrison is that Morrison inv olved m ultip le insurance pol ic ie s, w he re as the ins tant c as e inv olv es onl y asin gle ins ur an ce pol ic y . W e fi nd N ewY ork L if

e’ s a tte m pte d di sti nc tio n of

Mo rr iso n to be unp er sua siv e. T he i n s t a n tp l a i n t i f

f s ar e n o ta s s e rt i n g ac l a i m fo r th e p r o c e e d s o f

th a ts i n g l e p o l i c y; rathe r, e ac h pl ai nti ff

is as se rt ing ac la im

to be r ei m

bur se d th e am ount

of ove rp ai d pr em iu m s wh ic h e ach pl ai nt iff pa id . A lso , N ewY ork L if

e’ s su gge sti on tha t the ind ivi dua l c er tif ic at e hol de rs do not have ind ivi dua l c ontra ct s w ithN ewY ork L if e is unde rm ine d by

the F lor ida case law . In E quitabl e L ife A ssurance Society of the U nited States v. W aggoner, 269 So . 2d 7 47, 748 ( 4 D CA197 2) , the F lor ida c our t st at ed : “ Whil e the th au tho ri tie s are div ide d onthe que sti on, w e be lie ve the be tte r vie wto be the one w hic h ho lds that un de r gr oup lif e ins ur an ce pol ic ie s th er e is a c ontra ct be tw ee n th e insurer and the indiv idual ins ured, that the c ontract consists both o f the m aster pol ic y and the c er

tif ic at e of ins ur an ce c onstru ed

tog ethe r. ” T his portio n of10

W ag gone r w as quo te d w ithappr ova l i n R uc ks v . O ld R ep ubl ic L if e In s. Co . , 345 So.2d 795, 796 (4 DC A 1977), and Rucks was quoted with approval bythis court th in D av is v . Cr ow n L if

e In s. Co . , 696 F . 2d 1 343, 134 5 ( 11 Ci r. 198 3) . S ee a lso th Lutz v. Protective L ife Ins. Co., 328 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1362 (S. D. Fla. 2004 ) (under indis tingu ishable facts involv ing a group policy , holding th at eac h indi vidu al certific ate holder had an indivi dual pol icy with the insurance com

pany , and that aggregation was not proper). Insup port of

it s arg um en t tha t c er

tif ic at e hol de rs li ke F ri edm ando n ot h av e ind ivi dua l c ontra ct s w ithN ewY ork L if e, and i n su

ppor t of it s arg um en t tha t this fact has c rucial significance for the “ com m on and un divid ed interest issue,” N ew Y ork L if e ci te s E ag le v. A T &T , 769 F . 2d 5 41 ( 9 Ci r. 198 5) ; P hoe nix I ns. Co . v. th W oosl ey , 287 F . 2d 5 31, 533 ( 10 Ci r. 196 1) ; B ish op v . G en er al Mo tor s C or p. , 925 th F. Su pp. 294 , 298 ( D . N . J. 199 6) ; B ro en env. Be aunit Co rp . , 305 F . Su

pp. 688 , 691 - 92 (E. D. W is. 1969), af

f’ d, 440 F.2d 1244 (7 Cir. 1970 ); E dgerton v. Ar m our & th Co., 94 F. S upp. 549 (C.D . C alif. 1950 ). All of these c ases are distin guish able; each involved so m e variation of a co m m on f und an d an un div ide d in te re st. I n E ag le , pla int if fs w er e share hol de rs of a uti lity c om pany and the ir c la im w as a kinto a share hol de rs ’ de ri va tiv e sui t. 769 F. 2d at 547 . Broenen also invol ved shareholder plaintiffs. T he trust indent ureNew Y ork L ife doe s point to one ag g reg ation case , Bla ck v. B eame , 550 F.2d 815, 3 818 (2d Cir. 1977), which doe s not fit neatly with the common fund ca ses cited a bove. In Bla ck, nin e sib lin g s, so me of

wh om w e re in f

os te r c are , s ue d th e state on a the or y that th e state c ou ld prese rve the family

unity without increa sing the state’s ove rall expenditure by takingthe childre n out of foster c are and usingthose funds to hire a social worke r to help the fa mily g et on its feet. On its way

to dismi ssing the pla intiffs’ statutory claims, the Second Circ uit rever sed the district c ourt ’s fi nd ingof

no jur isd ic tio n. In th e c ourt ’s vie w, the c a se wa s p ro pe rl y a g g re g ate d b e c a

us e plaintiffs wer e see king to r edire ct the expenditure of state welf are funds in excess of the jurisdictional amount, and bec ause the siblings’ intere st in family service s was common and un div ide d. I d. at 81 7- 18 . B la c k v . B e ame pr ov ide s li ttl e guid anc e fo r o ur inq uir y he re du e to the wh oll y

dis sim ila r f a c tua l c onte xt und e rl yingthe c a se . T he pla int if fs ’ i nte re st i n f

amil y service s was “obviously” common and undivided the re, id. at 818, where as the c laims here f or reimburse ment of discre et over pay ments by individuals plainti ffs a

re se parate and distinct. Moreove r, B lack v. B eame involved fede ral que stion jurisdi ction which at the time r equire d a $10,000 jurisdictional amount. In Morrison, 228 F.3d at 1270, n.13, we noted that c ourts wer e more indulg ent in findingfede ral jurisdiction in that context i n order to addre ss significa

nt fe de ra l qu e sti on s. 11 the y j oin tly he ld p ro hib ite d e ac h f

ro m takin g any

a ct ionthat w oul d a ff

ec t the rights of oth ers. 305 F.Supp. at 692. In E dgerton, plaintiffs wer e all shareholders or assignees of a dissolv ed corporation. 94 F. Supp. at 549. I n Phoenix, the parties w er e se ek ing dis tr ibu tio n of the pr oc ee ds o f a fi re ins ur an ce pol ic y , and h ad a co m m on and undi vid ed

int er es t i n th e cl ai m . 287 F . 2d at 53 3. 3 In de ed , N ewY ork L if

e can po int

to no c as e in this or

any oth er c ir cu it al low ing a ggr eg at ionf

or j ur isd ic tio na l purp ose s w he re e ac h pl ai nti ff ha s ac la im of the kin d de sc ri be d a

bove – i . e. , one w hic h pl ai nti ff c oul d have br ough t separately ; in which the am ount rec eived does no t vary depending upon whether oth er pla int if fs j oinor dr op o ut; and i n w hic h apot en tia l pl ai nti ff ’ s no n-Contr a st the sit uatio n d e sc ri be d in

our hy po the tic a l w iththe pa

ra digmatic 4 common fund ca se, in which multiple plaintiffs asser t “claims to a piec e of la

nd, a trust fund, a

n e s t at e , ani n s ur an c e p o l i c y , o r l i e n , o r ani t e mo f

c o l l at e r a l . . . ” G i l m an , 1 0 4 F . 3 d at1 4 2 4 . In those ca ses, one plaintiff’ s decision to drop his or her claim re sults in t hat plaintiff’s sha re be ing divided up amongthe re maining c laimants. Conversely , the addition of newplaintiffs results in a proportionate r eduction of the orig inal claimants’ sha re of the pie. 12 part ic ipatio n do es not

r es ult in that pl ai nti ff

’ s a lle ge d dam ag es inuri ng t o th e be ne fit of a ny oth er p art y . T o se e the dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n th e ins tant c as e an d th e ca se s in vol vin g com m on fund s cenarios subjec t to aggregation, it is useful to con sider a hy pothe tic al that si m

pli fi es the f

ac ts o f the ins tant c as e an d pr ovi de s, f or ill ustrativ e pur

pose s on ly , som e fi gur es . S uppo se that F ri edm an ’ s c la ss i nit ia lly had 50 m em

bers and that, if each prevailed on the m erits and the court ordered repay m ent of the dispu ted prem ium s, ea ch m em ber w ouldrec eive the am ount that he or she ha d ov er

pa id i n pr em ium s. S uppo se f urthe r that the ove rp ay

m en t am ount is the sam e fo r ea chc la ss m em be r an d th at

the ove rp ay

m en t am ount

is $2, 000. F ina lly , sup pose that 45 c la ss m em be rs los e int er es t i n th e ca se and dro p out, leaving onl y

5 m em bers in the class. Ea ch of the rem aining 5 m em bers w oul d r ec ei ve the sam e $2, 000 he or she w oul d have r ec ei ve d pr ior to the departure of the others. Conversely , if the class grewto 200 m em bers, the original 50 w oul d no t se e the ir

r ec ove ry in an y w ay dim ini she d. 4 Finally , N ewYork L ife ar gues that if the plainti ffs get re lief in this case,Such cost-shiftingseems to be more in the nature of a possible c ollatera l 5 conseque nce of

an insuranc e compa

ny ’s losing a

lawsuit, rather

than any thing r elated to the natur e of the ri g ht a sse rt e d b y

the pla int if

f. Se e Mo rr iso n, 22 8 F .3 d at 12 64 (“ F or amou nt i n controve rsy

purposes, . . . it is the nature of the right asserte d . . . that deter mines whether

the claims of multiple plaintiffs may be ag g reg ated” ).

13 t h e n th e e n t i r e g r o up wi l l b e a f f e c t e db y fu tu r e p r e mi u m ch an g e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, N ewY ork L if

e cl ai m s th at

the re is a co m

m on r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e cl as s m em bers and that future prem ium s will shift betwee n the various class m em bers and/or between the cla ss m em bers and other insureds as a result of any declaratory or inj unc tiv e re lie f obt ai ne d by F ri edm an . A cc or din g to N ewY ork L if e, c ost shi ft ing f ro m any one c la ss w ill inc re as e the pr em ium r at es of the r em ai nin g p e o p l e i n s u r e dth r o u g h th e g r o up p o l i c y. W e ha ve no r ea son to d oubt that, if N ewY ork L if

e los es on the m er its of thi s c as e, one pos sib le r es pons e m igh t be an a tte m pt t o sh if t so m e of thi s c ost am ongs t i ts o the r ins ur ed s. H ow ev er , w e ar e not pe rs ua de d th at

the pos sib ili ty

of such cost-shi fting, w hich is character istic of insurance generally , should trigg er aggregation for purposes o f ca lculating th e am ount in controversy . N ewYork 5 L if e’ s arg um en t pr ove s to o m uc h; i f pr ospe ct ive c ost -s hif tin g inr es pons e to law sui ts tri gge re d a ggr eg at ion , a ggr eg at ionw oul d be the r ule , and n ot the str ic tly co nstru ed e xc ep tio n. Mo rr iso n, 228 F . 3d at 12 62- 63; E ag le S tar In s. Co . , 313As we note inf ra Part I I (C ) r e g ard inginj un c tiv e re lie f, thi s p ro sp e c tiv e c os t- 6 shifting a rgument is both speculative (be cause it is j ust one possible response to a neg ative ruling on the merits) a

nd descr ibes a c onsequenc e that flows not fr om the rig ht asserte d, but rather from New Y ork L ife’s pote ntial response to a rulingin favor of

plaintiffs. See Morr ison, 228 F.3d at 1268 (the amount in controversy is determined f

rom the plaintiff’s pe rspec tive). 14 F. 2d at 78 1. 6 In sum , a ggregation is not perm issib le in this case.

B. F ac e V al ue N ewY ork L if

e co nte nds that e ve n if

a ggr eg at ionis im

pr ope r, the c as e m ee ts the am ount in controversy requirem ent because “ the face value of the policy co ntr ols ” an d F ri edm an ’ s po lic y ha s af ac e va lue of

$2 m ill ion . I n su

ppor t of thi s pr opos iti on, N ewY ork L if e ci te s G uard ian L if

e In sur an ce Co . v. Muniz , 101 F . 3d 93, 94 (11 Cir. 1996 ) (per curiam); C. E. Car

nes & E m ploy ers’ Lia

bilityAssurance th Co rp . 101 F . 2d 7 39, 741 ( 5 Ci r. 193 9) ; N ewY ork L if e In sur an ce Co . v. S w if

t, 38 th F.2 d 1 75 , 17 6 (5 Cir . 19 30 ). th T he se c as es are e as ily

dis tin gui sha

ble , a s e ac h in vol ve d adis put e ab out the va lid ity of the pol ic y

or the sc ope of

c ove ra ge f

or ac la im that pu t the f

ac e am ount of the pol ic y

a t i ssu e. I n bo th G uard ian, 101 F . 3d at 94 , and S w if t, 38 F . 2d at 17 6, the ins ur er

a lle ge d th at

the ins ur ed

ha d pr oc ur ed

li fe ins ur an ce by

f ra ud and s ough t t o c a n c e l th e p o l i c y.15

InCarn es , one of

the de fe ndants ha d in sur ed atr uc k w ithpla int if

f, an ins ur an ce c om

pany . 101 F . 2d 7 39. T he tr uc k w as use d by

thi s de fe ndant f

or hauli ng l iqu id b utane . Whe n th e tr uc k bl ewup, kil lin g and i nj ur ing m ult ipl e pe opl e, the ins ur er

sou ght ade cl ar at or

y j udgm en t a ga ins t a ll cl ai m s to the pol ic y by those who suffered losses in the explo sion, on grou nds th at the policy did no t cover use of the tr uc k f or hauli ng l iqu id b utane . T he c ourt st at ed that “ [t ] he a m ount

in co ntr ove rs y

is the va lue of

that w hic h is sou ght

to ha ve de cl ar ed

f re e fr om doubt – th e p ol ic y for$2 5,0 00 .” Id . at 7 41 . Whe re , a s he re , the re is no c ontro ve rs y inv olv ing the f

ac e va lue of

the pol ic y , but

onl y w ithr eg ar ds t o c er

ta in p re m ium s, it

w oul d m ak e no s en se to co ns id er t he po li cy ’s face v al ue to be th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y . C. In jun ct iv e Rel ie f. Fi na lly , N ewY ork L if

e ar gue s th at

the va lue of

any inj unc tiv e re lie f shou ld be added to the value of the com pensatory dam ages. How ever, Ne w Y ork Life co nc ed ed a t or al arg um en t tha t i t ha s no t arg ue d th at any sin gle pla int if

f is s ee kin g rel ie f whi ch wou ldto ta l $ 75 ,00 0, i nc lu di ng an y an d a ll asp ect s o f su ch rel ie f. T he re fo re , N ewY ork L if e’ s arg um en t tha t the $75 , 000 am ount in co ntr ove rs y

is sa tis fi ed ne ce ssari ly

de pe nds uponit s a ggr eg at ionarg um en t.See Morr ison, in which we he ld: 7 Ag g reg ation is determined by the rig ht asserte d, not the relief reque sted .... Acc ording ly , when a

n injunction protects rig hts that are se parate and distinct amongthe plaintiffs, the va lue of the injunction to the individual plaintiffs may not be ag g reg ated to sustain diversity jurisdiction. 228 F.3d at 1271 (citations omitted). 16 W e ha ve a lr ea dy

de te rm ine d th e natur e of the r igh t a sse rt ed

by F ri edm anand the oth er put at ive c la ss m em

be rs , nam el y

that the y are a sse rt ing ind ivi dua l r igh ts that are se parate and d ist inc t f ro m the oth er c la ss m em

be rs . A nd w e ha ve a lr ea dy de te rm ine d th at

the na tur e of

the r igh ts a sse rt ed

he re do n ot p er

m it ag gr eg at ion . 7 Init s br ie fs to the dis tr ic t c ourt and o n a ppe al , N ewY ork L if

e m ak es a concluso ry

argum ent that the injunction so ught by Friedm an would require future pr em ium s f

or thi s gr oup pol ic y

to be ba se d up on a

c om ple te ly dif fe re nt r at e str uc tur e, w hic h, N ewY ork L if e ar gue s, w oul d m ean th at the pr em ium s to be pa id by a ll fu tur e ce rt if

ic at e hol de rs w oul d be a ff ec te d. N ewY ork L if

e ar gue s th at

thi s is s uf fi ci en t t o c onve rt

F ri edm an ’ s c la im

int o on e re pr es en tin g ac om m on and undi vided in terest in a single re s. We s ee s ev er al fl aw s i n Ne w Yo rkLi fe ’s argum ent. F irst, this argum ent focuses on Friedm an’ s routine and tag-along pray er fo r inj unc tio n, w hil e ign or ing F ri edm an ’ s pr im ar y c la im f or r ei m bur se m en t of ove rp ai d pr em ium s. A s de m onstrate d a bove , F ri edm an ’ s pr im ar

y c la im f or re im bur se m en t c le ar ly

a sse rt s an in div idu al r igh t tha t i s se parate and d ist inc t f ro m17

that of other class m em

bers. See Morrison, 228 F.3d at 1266 (rej ecting an ar gum en t tha t a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s c oul d be a ggr eg at ed

e ve n th oughthe y

m ay part ak e of a fa ct or sug ge sti ve of

ac om m on and i ndi vid

ua l i nte re st, i. e. , apun iti ve na tur e, and hol din g th at

a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s m ay not be a ggr eg at ed

be ca use pla int if

fs ha d se parate an d di sti nc t r igh ts t o r ec ove r attor ne y ’ s f ee s, the “param ount

iss ue w ithr es pe ct

to

.. . the a ggregation o f any

claim ”). Even if the tag-along pray er f or injunction m ight h ave m ore significance t h an we ar e i n cl i n ed t o ac co rd i t , i ti s h ar d t o as ce rt ai n fr o m

Ne w Yo rkLi fe ’s de sc ri pti on tha t the re is in f ac t a c om m on res or

that the pla int if

fs ’ c la im s w oul d properly be deem ed to be undi vided in terests therein. N ewYork L ife suggests th at the c om m on res m igh t be de em ed to be the f

uture pr em ium s to be pa id b y a ll the certific ate holders in this g roup pol icy under a re vam

ped rate structure. H owever , it is difficult to say

that Friedm an and the other putativ e class m em bers have a co m m on and undi vid ed

int er es t i n any

suc h res giv enthat e ac h pl ai nti ff ha s a separate and dis tinct right and anyinjunction m erely protects that right. Se e Mor ri son, 228 F . 3d at 12 71 ( “ [W ] he n an in j unc tio n pr ote ct s r igh ts tha t are se parate an d di sti nc t . . . , the va lue of the inj unc tio n to the ind ivi dua l pl ai nti ff s m ay not be aggregated to sustain diversity j urisdictio n.”) . An additional flaw in N ewYork L ife’ s argum ent is that it is sp eculative in at18

le as t tw o w ay s. N ewY ork L if e’ s c re at ive int er

pr et at ionof

the kin d of

inj unc tio n Fr ie dm ansou ght

is m er el y N ewY ork L if

e’ s own sp ec ulatio n of

one pos sib le response it m ight take. Should plain tiffs prevail on the m erits, it is utter spe cu la tio n a s to w ha t c our se or c our se s of

a ct ionN ewY ork L if

e m igh t t ak e w ith respect to future r ate structuring, and Fr iedm an certainly did no t specifically

seek any particular inj unctive rem edy . While the description suggest ed in NewYork L if e’ s br ie fs is one pos sib le r es pons e, the re are und oubt ed ly se ve ra l othe rs . F or ex am ple , N ewY ork L if

e m igh t f ind w ay s to c ut c ost s, or

e ve n de ci de to sim

ply canc el the pol ic y . S ee L utz , 328 F . Su pp. 2d at 36 1 ( dis cu ssi ng the spe cu la tiv e na tur e of inj unc tiv e re lie f in a

sim ilar co nte xt, not ing that the ins ur an ce c om pany co u l ds i m p l y ca n ce l th e p o l i cy an dt er m i n at e t h e r el at i o n s h i p ). Ne w Yo rkLi fe ’s argum ent is also speculativ e in that NewYork L ife m akes no attem pt to qu antify the be ne fi t of

any part ic ular inj unc tiv e re lie f to F ri edm anand the oth er put at ive cl as s m em

be rs . S ee Mo rr iso n, 228 F . 3d at 12 68 ( hol din g th at f or a m ount in co ntr ove rs y

pur pose s, the va lue of

inj unc tiv e re lie f is t o be m ea sur ed f ro m the pla int if fs ’ pe rs pe ct ive ). T he spe cu la tiv e na tur e of the va lue of

any suc h be ne fi t t o plaintiffs is closelyintertwined w ith the un certa inty regar ding the response which New YorkLife m ig ht tak e to an ad ve rs e m eri ts rul in g. Fi na lly , w e re

j ec t N ewY ork L if

e’ s a ppr oa chbe ca

use , in ad dit ionto be ing19

spe cu la tiv e, it

w oul d c re at e a sit

ua tio n inw hic h th e ex ist en ce of div er sity j ur isd ic tio n w oul d of

te n be de pe ndant u

pon w hic h of

se ve ra l po ssi ble r es pons es a de fe ndant c la im ed

it w oul d take in re spon se to an a dve rs e ru lin g. Wha te ve r its oth er r am if ic at ion s, suc h an a

ppr oa cha m ount s to an im pe rm iss ibl e atte m

pt t o m ea sur e inj unc tiv e re lie f fr om the pe rs pe ct ive of

the de fe ndant. I d. III. C ONC LUS ION Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e ar e pe rs ua de d th at N ewY ork L if

e ha s f ai le d to carr y it s burd enof

e sta bli shi ng an am ount

in co ntr ove rs y

in ex ce ss o f $75, 000. Ac co rd i n g l y, th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o th av e ju ri s d i ct i o n t o h ea r t h i s ca s e. We va cate the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt and r em an d th is c as e w ithins tr uc tio ns f or th e d is tri ctco ur t t o re m an d t he cas e to th e st at e co ur t. VACATED an d REMANDED.