Opinion ID: 77000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Face Value

Text: 28 New York Life contends that even if aggregation is improper, the case meets the amount in controversy requirement because the face value of the policy controls and Friedman's policy has a face value of $2 million. In support of this proposition, New York Life cites Guardian Life Insurance Co. v. Muniz, 101 F.3d 93, 94 (11th Cir.1996) ( per curiam ); C.E. Carnes & Co. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. 101 F.2d 739, 741 (5th Cir.1939); New York Life Insurance Co. v. Swift, 38 F.2d 175, 176 (5th Cir.1930). 29 These cases are easily distinguishable, as each involved a dispute about the validity of the policy or the scope of coverage for a claim that put the face amount of the policy at issue. In both Guardian, 101 F.3d at 94, and Swift, 38 F.2d at 176, the insurer alleged that the insured had procured life insurance by fraud and sought to cancel the policy. 30 In Carnes, one of the defendants had insured a truck with plaintiff, an insurance company. 101 F.2d 739. The truck was used by this defendant for hauling liquid butane. When the truck blew up, killing and injuring multiple people, the insurer sought a declaratory judgment against all claims to the policy by those who suffered losses in the explosion, on grounds that the policy did not cover use of the truck for hauling liquid butane. The court stated that [t]he amount in controversy is the value of that which is sought to have declared free from doubt — the policy for $25,000. Id. at 741. 31 Where, as here, there is no controversy involving the face value of the policy, but only with regards to certain premiums, it would make no sense to consider the policy's face value to be the amount in controversy. 32