Hollinger v. Home State Mutual Insurance
654 F.3d 564
5th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Hollinger et al. sue as a class alleging discrimination under the Texas Insurance Code in the non-standard auto insurance market.
- Defendants are numerous Texas County Mutuals and reinsurers, collectively the Insurance Companies, as well as Odyssey America Reinsurance Company (cross-appellee).
- CAFA provides federal jurisdiction for interstate class actions, but CAFA includes mandatory abstention exceptions for local controversy and home state.
- District court abstained under CAFA's local controversy and home state provisions, triggering appellate review of citizenship/domicile findings.
- Insureds’ class is defined as Texas auto policyholders of County Mutuals with injuries arising in Texas; district court used evidentiary proof to assess two-thirds citizenship/domicile for abstention.
- Question presented: whether more than two-thirds of the class were Texas citizens and/or domiciled in Texas as of filing date; court affirms district court’s determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two-thirds of the class were Texas citizens at filing. | Hollinger argued class citizenship did not meet two-thirds Texas threshold. | Insurance Companies showed by preponderance that two-thirds were Texas citizens. | Affirmed two-thirds finding. |
| Whether two-thirds of the class were Texas domiciliaries with intent to remain at filing. | Hollinger contends lack of proof of Texas domicile for most class members. | Insurance Companies offered practical evidence of Texas residency and intent to remain. | Affirmed domicile findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Katrina Canal Litig. Breaches, 524 F.3d 700 (5th Cir. 2008) (CAFA jurisdiction and local controversy principles discussed near core abstention issues)
- Preston v. Tenet Healthsys. Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. (Preston II), 485 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard for CAFA abstention and burden of proof on exceptions to jurisdiction)
- Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 457 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2006) (local-controversy abstention framework (narrow, locality-driven))
- Caruso v. Allstate Insurance Co., 469 F. Supp. 2d 364 (E.D. La. 2007) (common-sense domicile inference for discrete class groups)
- Preston I, 485 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2007) (foundational domicile and citizenship analysis for CAFA)
- Esquivel v. United States, 88 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial notice and use of census data in domicile/privacy matters)