Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. United States ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is
    not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    04-5080
    ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (formerly known as Cigna
    Property & Casualty Insurance Company), ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANIES,
    AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN GROWERS
    INSURANCE COMPANY IN REHABILITATION, COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE
    COMPANY, FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IOWA, FARMERS
    ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
    COMPANY, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, NAU COUNTRY
    INSURANCE COMPANY, PRODUCERS LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY,
    and RURAL COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    UNITED STATES,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    __________________________
    DECIDED: June 1, 2005
    __________________________
    Before MAYER, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company and several other insurers (“the
    insurers”) appeal the order of the United States Court of Federal Claims, dismissing
    their claim for breach of government-reinsured Multiple Peril Crop Insurance contracts
    (“MPCI contracts”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v.
    United States, 
    60 Fed. Cl. 175
     (2004). We affirm.
    The insurers argue that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction because they
    did not name the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (“FCIC”) as a defendant, and,
    therefore, 
    7 U.S.C. § 1506
    (d), which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the federal
    district courts over suits against the FCIC, does not apply.           They assert that by
    statutorily modifying the crop reinsurance program to reduce both the level of
    reimbursement provided for administrative costs and the level of loss adjustment
    expenses payable to insurers, it was Congress, not the FCIC, which breached the MPCI
    contracts. This theory fails; it is settled that this court “look[s] to the true nature of the
    action in determining the existence or not of jurisdiction.” Nat’l Ctr. for Mfg. Sci. v.
    United States, 
    114 F.3d 196
    , 199 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Katz v. Cisneros, 
    16 F.3d 1204
    , 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). An inspection of the contract and the insurers’ pleadings
    reveal the true nature of this action: a suit by the insurers against the FCIC, the
    contracting party, for breach of the MPCI contracts, a suit which falls under the purview
    of section 1506(d).
    The insurers alternatively argue that the Court of Federal Claims has concurrent
    jurisdiction. This argument also fails; by section 1506(d), Congress has withdrawn
    Tucker Act jurisdiction over claims against the FCIC and vested exclusive jurisdiction in
    the federal district courts. Texas Peanut Farmers v. United States, No. 04-5067, slip
    op. at 6 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the court’s dismissal of the
    insurers’ suit against the FCIC. Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly
    dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 1506(d), we have no occasion to revisit
    its superfluous finding regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies under 
    7 U.S.C. § 6912
    (e).
    04-5080                                       2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2004-5080

Judges: Mayer, Lourie, Bryson

Filed Date: 6/1/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2024