Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. United States , 138 F. App'x 308 ( 2005 )

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