Opinion ID: 2996471
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Appellants first challenge the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Hawkins plaintiffs assert that the district court did not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because their claims did not exceed $75,000. The court believed that the amount-in-controversy threshold had been met because the value of the Hawkins plaintiffs’ policies surpassed $75,000, but the Hawkins plaintiffs No. 01-4124, 01-4147 & 01-4148 5 insist this was error because they are not seeking the full cash value of the policies. We agree with the district court. The Hawkins plaintiffs are not only seeking money damages, but are also attacking the validity of their policies by seeking to nullify the arbitration provisions and to enjoin AAL from cancelling policies of class members who fail to pay premiums. And as AAL correctly points out, when the validity of a policy (as opposed to the insurer’s obligation to pay) is in dispute, the face value of that policy is a proper measure of the amount-in-controversy. Keck v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 359 F.2d 840, 841 (7th Cir. 1966). See also Budget Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Higashiguchi, 109 F.3d 1471, 1473 (9th Cir. 1997); Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Muniz, 101 F.3d 93, 94 (11th Cir. 1996); Mass. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 88 F.3d 415, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we find that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to compel the Hawkins plaintiffs to arbitration. Next, the Radmer plaintiffs assert that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over their claims because it was required to give preclusive effect to the Missouri district court’s prior remand. The Missouri district court returned the case to state court because not every plaintiff satisfied § 1332(a)’s amount-in-controversy threshold. This remand, however, was not entitled to preclusive effect because it was unappealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). See Benson v. SI Handling Sys., 188 F.3d 780, 783 (7th Cir. 1999). Moreover, the ruling was contrary to this circuit’s precedent, which holds that when one named plaintiff meets the minimum amount-in-controversy threshold, a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the remaining plaintiffs’ claims, even if their individual claims do not exceed that amount. See In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 123 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 1997). 6 No. 01-4124, 01-4147 & 01-4148