Opinion ID: 613226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: essential background

Text: The Insured's operative complaint defines their proposed class as: All persons who purchased an automobile insurance policy in Texas of [one of the County Mutual [2] insurance companies] and whose policies were in effect on or after August 17, 2007 up to the date of judgment, specifically excluding all federal district and magistrate judges of the Eastern District of Texas and members of their immediate families, Class Counsel and the directors, officers, and the employees of the defendants ... The Insured allege that various County Mutuals have violated the anti-discrimination provisions of Section 544.052 of the Texas Insurance Code, by charging certain consumers higher policy fees on their automobile insurance than they charged other consumers, when those consumers were of the same class and hazard. The Insured also allege that the Reinsurers [3] , which the Insured define as the Insurance Companies other than the County Mutuals, have participated in and permitted such violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The Insured assert diversity subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The Insurance Companies prevailed at the trial court on motions to dismiss on the grounds that CAFA's local controversy and home state exceptions required the district court to abstain from jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4), which is the crux of this case. [4]