American Family Mutual Ins. Co v. St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., 912 F.3d 1076

Background

Vein Centers sent unsolicited fax advertisements; St. Louis Heart filed a TCPA-based class action in 2011; class certified in 2013 and later decertified in 2017.
Vein Centers tendered defense/indemnity to its insurer, American Family, under a Businessowners Policy and a Commercial Liability Umbrella Policy.
Both policies contained a “Distribution of Material in Violation of Statutes” exclusion that explicitly referenced the TCPA; American Family agreed to defend under a reservation of rights and sued for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify.
St. Louis Heart (class representative) was later joined as a defendant in the declaratory action and moved to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction, arguing the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement was not met.
The district court denied the jurisdictional challenge and granted summary judgment for American Family, concluding the TCPA exclusion applied and that American Family had provided adequate notice of the exclusion under Missouri law. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction (amount in controversy)	St. Louis Heart: Amount-in-controversy cannot be satisfied by aggregating class members’ claims.	American Family: Value measured by insurer’s potential indemnity/defense exposure to insured (Vein Centers), which exceeds $75,000.	Jurisdiction proper; amount measured from insurer’s likely defense/indemnity obligations (exceeds $75,000).
Enforceability of TCPA exclusion in Businessowners Policy	St. Louis Heart: Exclusion is a constructive nonrenewal; insurer failed to give required 60-day nonrenewal notice, so exclusion not effective.	American Family: Sent Coverage Summary Letter and routinely included Policyholder Communication notifying changes; standard procedures establish presumption of mailing/receipt.	Exclusion effective; insurer established mailing/customs sufficient to invoke presumption of receipt; plaintiff did not rebut.
Presumption of receipt for mailed policy notices under Missouri law	St. Louis Heart: Corporate witness lacked direct proof PLC was mailed; testimony insufficient to trigger presumption.	American Family: Evidence of settled business practice and internal communications sufficed to trigger mailing/receipt presumption.	Presumption available based on business practice evidence; plaintiff offered no evidence rebutting receipt.
Effect of class certification/aggregation on declaratory-judgment amount-in-controversy	St. Louis Heart: Class plaintiffs’ claims cannot be aggregated to reach jurisdictional amount.	American Family: Anti-aggregation rule inapplicable because the declaratory action is between one insurer and one insured; the insurer’s single exposure is the relevant measure.	Anti-aggregation rule does not bar measuring amount-in-controversy by insurer’s single indemnity/defense exposure.

Key Cases Cited

ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction and de novo review).
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Prot. All., LLC, 620 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.) (amount-in-controversy in insurer declaratory actions equals probable defense and indemnity costs).
Kessler v. Nat’l Enters., Inc., 347 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir.) (rule against aggregating distinct plaintiffs’ claims to meet amount-in-controversy).
Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir.) (anti-aggregation rule does not preclude measuring insurer’s single exposure in declaratory action).
Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moody Station & Grocery, 821 F.3d 973 (8th Cir.) (value of the right sought is the measure for amount-in-controversy).
Crenshaw v. Great Cent. Ins. Co., 482 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir.) (distinct plaintiffs cannot aggregate separate demands to satisfy jurisdiction).
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 893 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment).