Opinion ID: 2821944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fun Services’s Counterclaims

Text: Fun Services disputes the district court’s conclusion that it lacks standing to bring counterclaims. We review this issue de novo. St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Gaertner, 439 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court concluded that, under Missouri law, Fun Services lacks standing to sue Western Heritage about the meaning of the insurance policies because Fun Services has not obtained a judgment against Asphalt Wizards. We agree. See Camden v. Mo. Intergovernmental Risk Mgmt. Ass’n, 258 S.W.3d 547, 558 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 744 S.W.2d 782, 785-86 (Mo. 1988). In the absence of standing to sue under state law, the district court deemed itself bound by the rule that “[i]n a diversity case, a court will not address a plaintiff’s claims unless the plaintiff meets the ‘case or controversy’ requirements of article III of the Constitution and also has standing to sue under the relevant state law.” Wolfe v. Gilmour Mfg. Co., 143 F.3d 1122, 1126 (8th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). The district court’s reasoning accords with our precedent, which has asked whether a third-party claimant has standing to sue an insurer under state law in a diversity action requesting declaratory relief. Glover v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 984 F.2d 259, 260 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). We acknowledge that the dismissal of Fun Services’s counterclaims creates a potentially odd result: Western Heritage sued Fun Services concerning the meaning of the insurance policies, yet Fun Services lacks standing at this stage to assert counterclaims about the same subject. Other courts have permitted a third-party claimant to bring a claim for declaratory relief against -5- an insurer in similar circumstances. Morell v. Star Taxi, 343 F. App’x 54, 57-58 (6th Cir. 2009); Miller v. Augusta Mut. Ins. Co., 157 F. App’x 632, 636-38 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). However, in light of Glover, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Fun Services’s counterclaims.