Amerind Risk Management v. Myrna Malaterre, 633 F.3d 680

Background

Amerind Risk Management Corp. is a federally chartered corporation that succeeded ARMC and now administers a tribal self-insurance pool under a § 477 charter.
TMHA, a Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians entity, contracted with ARMC/AMERIND for property damage and personal injury coverage prior to 2002–2004.
In 2002, a house fire on Turtle Mountain Reservation killed occupants and injured a guest; three Tribe members sued TMHA in Tribal Court, later adding ARMC and then Amerind as defendants.
The Tribal Court denied Amerind’s sovereignty-immunity defense, allowing direct claims against Amerind based on tribal law that permits insurers to be sued directly when federally mandated insurance applies.
Amerind obtained a federal charter in 2004 and later filed a federal declaratory judgment action seeking dismissal of the Tribal Court suit and injunctive relief to stop proceedings against Amerind there.
The district court granted summary judgment that Tribal Court had jurisdiction over Amerind under MT/Strate-related rationale, and Amerind appealed, arguing tribal immunity forecloses direct suit against Amerind.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amerind has tribal sovereign immunity from the direct suit.	Malaterre argues Amerind waived immunity via contract/charter.	Amerind contends no express waiver; immunity applies as a § 477 corporation.	Amerind has tribal immunity; no express waiver proven.
Whether Amerind’s immunit y was expressly or effectively waived by the Scope of Coverage or charter provisions.	Malaterre asserts waiver through ARMC’s obligations and TMHA contract.	Amerind argues no unequivocal waiver; charter provisions require board resolution to waive immunity.	No unequivocal waiver found; waiver not proven.
Whether the district court or Montana consensual relation exception allows Tribal Court jurisdiction over Amerind.	Malaterre maintains ARMC/TMHA contract creates nexus for tribal jurisdiction.	Amerind argues no nexus since Amerind is nonmember and not a party to the contract surfacing a direct claim against it.	Tribal Court lacks jurisdiction over Amerind due to immunity and lack of waiver.

Key Cases Cited

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (establishes Montana framework for nonmember tribal jurisdiction via consensual relationship with tribes)
Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (consensual relationship limits; nexus required between dispute and relationship)
Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001) (limits of Montana consensual relationship exception; not penny-in-for-a-pound)
Hagen v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Cmty. Coll., 205 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2000) (tribal sovereign immunity is a threshold jurisdictional question)
Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (recognizes tribal immunity; suggests need for legislative abrogation)
C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (2001) (arbitration clause can constitute express waiver of tribal immunity)
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Val-U Constr. Co. of S.D., Inc., 50 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 1995) (binding arbitration can waive immunity for contract claims; tort claims treated differently)
Asociacion de Empleados del Area Canalera v. Panama Canal Comm’n, 453 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2006) (express waiver required; general responsibility transfer not enough)
American Indian Agricultural Credit Consortium, Inc. v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 780 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1985) (general assumption of obligations not an express waiver of immunity)
Nord v. Kelly, 520 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2008) (consensual relationship not enough where dispute is ordinary tort between strangers)
Amerind Risk Mgmt. Corp. v. Malaterre, 585 F.Supp.2d 1121 (D.N.D. 2008) (district court identified Montana jurisdictional issue; immunity not addressed on appeal)