Opinion ID: 789742
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Diversity jurisdiction is present.

Text: 114 Mr. Bennett contends that Lloyd's is not a corporation, but is rather more like an association, which adopts the citizenship of each of its syndicate investment members. Lloyd's and Equitas are merely agents for the syndicates, collecting cash calls from syndicate investor Names to pay off the liabilities arising from syndicate insurance policies. Bennett Rep. Br. at 5. Under this interpretation, Lloyd's attempt to claim federal diversity jurisdiction is a sham and there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction. Id. 115 We must reject Mr. Bennett's assertions. Early on, Lloyd's may have been a form of an unincorporated association, but under the Lloyd's Act of 1871, the company was incorporated. Although we agree that Lloyd's is not a corporation within the traditional sense of the word, see Ashenden v. Lloyd's of London, 934 F.Supp. 992, 998-99 (N.D.Ill.1996), there is no challenge to or question regarding Lloyd's place of incorporation (it is duly incorporated under the laws of England). Similarly it maintains its principal place of business in London, England. These facts are unchallenged, and comprise the weightiest part of our inquiry. See id. (noting that the most important consideration is Supreme Court precedent indicating that the citizenship of business entities must be determined by the simple fact of legal incorporation or the lack thereof, rather than the nature or attributes of the entity in question.). We thus hold that the jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). Equitas Reinsurance, Limited (the assignor of Lloyd's underlying claims against the Names) is also a duly incorporated English company formed under the laws of England, and Mr. Bennett's similar allegations against Equitas must also fail. 116