Court Opinion

ID: 9468177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:07:24.870234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:44.360638
License: Public Domain

THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because we do not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) pursuant to our holding in Campbell v. Insurance Co. of North America, 552 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1977). The majority’s reason for finding jurisdiction is that Dairyland Insurance Company was the plaintiff. The majority puts excessive emphasis on the word “against” in the statute. If the Makovers had been plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment proceeding, I assume the majority would hold that we lack diversity jurisdiction.
I do not agree with the majority that this case is distinguishable from Campbell, supra..
The sole distinction between Hernandez [1] and this case is that here it is the insurer which wishes to appeal and has sought to invoke federal jurisdiction to do so. We hold it is without a difference. All the policy considerations arguing for the application of § 1332(c) made in Hernandez, and so well set out there, argue that it be applied here. Appellant asserts that this is not such a “direct action against the insurer” as § 1332(c) concerns. As for “directness,” the case is as immediate between the injured claimant and the insurer as was Hernandez. That opinion disposes of all but the circumstance that here the shoe is on the other foot, the insurer is bringing suit to appeal against the claimant. The distinction urged is valid, but too thin. [Emphasis added.] As noted, all the same policy considerations for our earlier holding apply here. In addition, the actual nature of the claim to the board and appeal to the court, the overall proceeding seen as a whole, is that of a process initiated by the injured workman against the insurer; and even on the de novo appeal, the bürden of proof remains with the plaintiff. Indeed, the district court formally realigned the parties below to reflect this fact. Finally, to accept appellant’s contention would be [to] construe the statute so as to provide jurisdiction in federal court for a dissatisfied insurer — since the appeal action is not against [emphasis in original] it — but none for the unhappy claimant. Such a result argues eloquently against appellant’s contention.
Id. at 605.
Additionally, I disagree with the majority because this opinion adds uncertainty that *1129we do not need. Uncertainty in the law is always to be deplored. Especially is this true when jurisdiction is involved. Parties should know with all the certainty possible whether they can bring their lawsuit in a particular court. Here our court finds for the insurance company because it filed the initial suit. The state courts have more expertise in insurance coverage matters than we and set the policy judgments in this type of litigation. The case should be in the state court as intended by Congress when it amended Section 1332(e).
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.

. Hernandez v. The Travelers Insurance Co., 489 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1974).