Well-Come Holdings, LLC v. American Safety Risk Retention Group, Inc.
710 F.3d 1221
11th Cir.2013Background
- Well-Come seeks a declaration that it is an additional insured under ASRRG/ASIS policies issued to Flintlock LLC for underlying New York tort actions.
- ASRRG/ASIS denied issuing policies to Flintlock LLC; the certificate naming Well-Come reflected American Safety Indemnity Company, not ASRRG/ASIS.
- Well-Come also seeks indemnification from Flintlock per a construction-contract indemnity provision; Flintlock counterclaims.
- District Court granted Well-Come’s indemnity claim against Flintlock and granted ASRRG/ASIS summary judgment against Well-Come; other motions denied.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit dismisses Well-Come’s claims against Flintlock for lack of complete diversity to preserve jurisdiction, affirms summary-judgment rulings against Well-Come, and discusses estoppel theories and pleading requirements under Rule 15(a)(2).
- The panel emphasizes Well-Come and Flintlock are both New York citizens, destroying complete diversity, and that the district court should not have adjudicated claims against Flintlock without proper jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction vs. diversity | Well-Come contends jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1332 | ASRRG/ASIS challenge jurisdiction due to lack of complete diversity | Dismissal of Well-Come’s claims against Flintlock to maintain diversity; jurisdiction preserved on appeal |
| Insurance policy issuance to Flintlock LLC | Well-Come asserts ASRRG/ASIS issued CGL and excess policies to Flintlock LLC | Record shows Flintlock LLC was not insured by ASRRG/ASIS; certificate named AS Indemnity | ASRRG/ASIS did not issue policies to Flintlock LLC; certificate misidentification defeats coverage claim |
| Estoppel theories in complaint | Well-Come argues ASRRG is estopped from denying coverage | No estoppel pleaded in complaint; arguments raised in briefing improper without leave to amend | Estoppel theories not pleaded; district court erred in treating them as independent claims; Well-Come failed to amend properly under Rule 15(a)(2) |
| Remand/affirmation posture on summary judgment | Well-Come seeks relief against ASRRG/ASIS; seeks remand or different outcome | Record supports summary judgment against Well-Come | Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, ruling primarily on jurisdiction and pleading grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237 (1934) (federal court must ensure lower court jurisdiction)
- Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (sua sponte jurisdiction inquiry)
- Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) (complete diversity requirement for §1332 jurisdiction)
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004) (citizenship for LLCs in diversity measures)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (inherent power to control court proceedings; management of affairs)
- John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82 (1922) (interlocutory order may be reconsidered; dismissal/limited intervention)