Summary
remanding case because of lack of diversity jurisdiction because "Erie Insurance Exchange has members/policyholders who are citizens of Maryland"
Summary of this case from Erie Ins. Exch. v. Dell Inc.Opinion
Civil No. AMD 08-744.
November 24, 2008
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
I have reviewed the briefing on the motion to remand this declaratory judgment action and I have determined to rule in this informal manner.
The issue presented is whether defendant Erie Insurance Exchange is, like the United Services Automobile Association, see Tuck v. U.S.A.A., 859 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1988), a reciprocal insurance exchange whose citizenship under the diversity statute is that of all of its member/policyholders. The following appears on page three of the Erie Indemnity Company's 2008 10-K report filed with the SEC:
Erie Indemnity Company (Company), a Pennsylvania corporation, operates predominantly as the management services company that provides sales, underwriting and policy issuance services to the policyholders of Erie Insurance Exchange (Exchange). The Exchange is a reciprocal insurance exchange, which is an unincorporated association of individuals, partnerships and corporations that agree to insure one another. Each applicant for insurance to a reciprocal insurance exchange signs a subscriber's agreement that contains an appointment of an attorney-in-fact. We have served as the attorney-in-fact for the policyholders of the Exchange since 1925. (Emphasis added).
It seems clear, therefore, as Tuck noted under analogous circumstances, and as Erie Insurance Exchange contends in its motion to remand, that because Erie Insurance Exchange has members/policyholders who are citizens of Maryland, this court lacks jurisdiction over this removed action for lack of complete diversity. Tuck, supra; accord Olson v. Lacey, 2006 WL 3017486 (W.D.Wis., Oct. 19, 2006).
Accordingly, the motion to remand is GRANTED. An Order follows.