# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 32 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: Trav el ers Hom e an d M ari ne Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 17 Fi le d: Octo be r 6, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Greg Bo ss ’s ho m e in th e East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri su ffer ed ha il da m ag e in
Ju ne 20 1 4

. B o s s fil ed a pr op ert y da m ag e cl ai m un de r th e rep la cem en t co st ho m eo wne rs ’ in su ran ce po li cy is su e d by Trav el ers Hom e an d Mar in e In su ran ce Co m pa ny. Afte r Trav el ers pa id Bo ss th e “ act ua l cas h va lu e” of th e lo ss pr io r to rep ai r

or rep la cem en t, Bo ss br ou gh t th is pu ta ti ve cl as s act io n i n th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, al le gi ng th at Trav el ers br each ed th e in su ran ce co nt ract by de du ct in g “ la bo r de pr eci at io n” fro m th e es ti m at ed rep la cem en t co st in de te rm in in g act ua l cas h va lu e. Trav el ers fil ed a m ot io n to tra ns fer ve nu e “ [f]or th e co nv en ie n c e o f pa rti es an d wit ne ss es , in th e in te res t of jus ti c e , ” to th e East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, whe re th e in su red pr op ert y , T ra

ve le rs ’ Mi ss ou ri cl ai m of

fic e, an d al l Mi ss ou ri- ba se d do cu m en tsan d wit ne ss es are lo cat ed

. 28 U.S.C. § 14 04 (a). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n,

an d Trav el ers pe ti ti on ed th is co ur t fo r a writ of m an da m us in st ru ct in g th e di st ric t

c o ur t to tra ns fer ve nu e to th e East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri. “ [W] e ha ve re c o g n i z e d th at th e writ of m a n d a mu s i s pr op er, al be it ex tra or di na ry , rel ie f fo r an erro ne ou s

ru li ng on a m ot io n to tra ns fer un de r § 14 04 (a).” In re App le
, In c., 60 2 F.3 d 90 9, 91 2 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

In it s Ord er de nyin g th e m o t i o n t o tra ns fer ve nu e, th e di st ric t co ur t rel ie d, to

a su bs ta nt ia l ex te nt , on th e fact th at “ th e is su e m os t li ke ly to be in di sp ut e in th is cas e is whe th er la bo r is de pr eci ab le whe n act ua l cas h va lu e is cal cu la te d. Thi s ve ry is su e ha s be en pr ev io us ly ad dr es se d by th e Co ur t” in LaBri er v. St a t e F a r m Fi re & Cas

. Co
., 14 7 F. Su pp

. 3d 83 9 (W. D. Mo

. 20 15 ). W it h in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al s in th e LaBri er

ca s e a l s o p e nd in g, on Aug us t 11
, 20 16 we en te red an or de r in th is cas e “ th at th e
pe ti ti on wil l be hel d in ab ey an ce pen di ng th e en try of a di sp os it iv e or de r in No. 16

- 31 85
, In re St at e Farm Fi re & Cas

. Co .” W e ha ve no w fil ed an op in io n rev ers in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s res ol ut io n of th e la bo r de pr eci at io n i s s u e in LaBri er an d it s
cert ifi cat io n of a cl as s in th at cas e, an d rem an di ng wit h di re c t i o n s t o d is m is s th e

na m ed pl ai nt iff

’s co m pl ai nt

. In re: St at e Farm Fi re & Cas

. Co
., Nos

. 16 -3 18 5 an d 16

- 35 62 (8 th Ci r. Sep t. 25
, 20 17 ). Acco rd in gl y , we no w gr an t th e pe ti ti on fo r a writ of

m an da m us , va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t ’s O r d e r da te d Ju ne 8, 20 16
, an d rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs in li gh t o f ou r de ci si on in In r e: Sta te Farm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-