Amer Heritage Life v. Harris ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    __________________
    No. 01-60835
    Summary Calendar
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    KATIE FAIR BEASLEY
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60836
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    DWAYNE BROWN
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60837
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    BETTY BURNETT
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60838
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    ORA CAIN
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60839
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    MELISSA CARTER
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60840
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    2
    ZINNIE MAE COLLINS
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60841
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    JESSIE COLVIN
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60842
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    MATTIE LEE CONNER
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60843
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    J C DOSS
    3
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60850
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    WILLIAM DAVIS
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60851
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    LEONARD CHARLES NAYLOR
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60853
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    LOUISE HARRELL
    Defendant - Appellant.
    4
    __________________
    No. 01-60854
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    KAREN HARRIS
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60855
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    MARGARET WATT HARRISON
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60856
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    EDDIE HEARD; TORSHA HEARD
    Defendants - Appellants.
    __________________
    5
    No. 01-60857
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    JACQUELINE HICKS-RANDLE
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60858
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    EMMA HILL
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60859
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    LOUISE HOWARD
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60860
    6
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    BOBBY C JOHNSON; LARRY JOHNSON
    Defendants - Appellants.
    __________________
    No. 01-60861
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    ARETHA CLARK JORDAN; JAMES M JORDAN
    Defendants - Appellants.
    __________________
    No. 01-60862
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    KAREN BOYD MCFARLAND; JORDAN T MCFARLAND
    Defendants - Appellants.
    __________________
    No. 01-60863
    __________________
    7
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    ROSIE MARTIN
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60864
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    THALMUS R MORGAN
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60866
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    KATHY MOSIER
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60867
    __________________
    8
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    BOBBY NASH
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60868
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    REBECCA NAYLOR
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60869
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    UNDRA SAWYER
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60870
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    9
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    DELOIS SLEDGE
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60871
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    LINDA FAYE SMITH
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60872
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    PRESTON TALLIE
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60873
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    10
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    LEXIE TATE
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60874
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    LEROY WATT
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60875
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    LES WILBON
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60876
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    11
    v.
    ARTHUR LEE WILLIAMS
    Defendant - Appellant.
    __________________
    No. 01-60877
    __________________
    AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
    FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
    Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    LAKIESHA YOUNG
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ______________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen
    1:00-CV-375-D-A
    ______________________________________________
    May 22, 2002
    Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Appellants Katie Beasley, Dwayne Brown, Betty Burnett, Ora
    Cain, Melissa Carter, Zinne Mae Collins, Jessie Colvin, Mattie Lee
    Conner, J.C. Doss, William Davis, Leonard Charles Naylor, Louise
    Harrell, Karen Harris, Margaret Watt Harrison, Eddie Heard, Torsha
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    12
    Heard, Jacqueline Hicks-Randle, Emma Hill, Louise Howard, Bobby
    Johnson, Larry Johnson, Aretha Clark-Jordan, James Jordan, Rosie
    Martin, Karen Boyd McFarland, James McFarland, Thalmus Morgan,
    Kathy Mosier, Bobby Nash, Rebecca Naylor, Undra Sawyer, Deloise
    Sledge, Linda Faye Smith, Preston Tallie, Lexie Tate, Leroy Watt,
    Les Wilbon, Arthur Lee Williams and Lakiesha Young (collectively
    “Beasley”) filed suit against Appellees American Heritage Life
    Insurance    Company   and   First    Colonial   Insurance    Company   in
    Mississippi state court (collectively “Heritage”).           Heritage then
    filed the instant actions pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, seeking to stay
    the state court proceedings and compel arbitration.           In separate
    orders, the district courts for the Northern and Southern districts
    of Mississippi granted Heritage this relief.        Beasley appeals and
    we affirm.
    DISCUSSION
    A.   Jurisdiction
    “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent
    jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate
    claims. It is incumbent on all federal courts to dismiss an action
    whenever it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.
    This is the first principle of federal jurisdiction.”          Stockman v.
    Fed. Election Comm’n, 
    138 F.3d 144
    , 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation
    omitted).    As the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Beasely
    bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is proper. 
    Id. 13 9
    U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) provides jurisdiction over appeals from
    “final decision[s] with respect to an arbitration.”         Interpreting
    9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) in Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 
    531 U.S. 79
    (2000), the Supreme Court held that Congress intended the term
    final decision in Section 16(a)(3) to have its ordinary meaning, to
    wit, “a decision that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
    nothing more for the court to do but execute the judgment.”            
    Id. at 86.
      Here, the only issue before the district court was whether to
    compel arbitration.       When it did so, there was nothing more for it
    to do but execute judgment.
    Heritage contends that the district court stayed the federal
    action and that therefore the order compelling arbitration was not
    final.    See 
    Randolph, 531 U.S. at 87
    n.2 (“Had the District Court
    entered a stay instead of a dismissal in this case, that order
    would not be appealable.”).2          This factual contention is not
    supported by the record.       Heritage did not request a stay of the
    federal proceedings and the district court order does not provide
    for one; because, unlike in Randolph, the federal action did not
    contain any substantive claims, there was nothing for the district
    courts    to   dismiss.     Accordingly,   we   conclude   that   we    have
    jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
    B.    McCarran-Ferguson Act
    Beasely contends that section two of the Federal Arbitration
    2
    We express no opinion on the question whether the district
    court had discretion to enter such a stay.
    14
    Act (the “FAA”) has been reverse preempted.        See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (“A
    written provision in any...contract...to settle by arbitration a
    controversy thereafter arising out of such contract...shall be
    valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
    exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”).
    In so arguing, Beasely relies on the McCarran-Ferguson act and a
    declaration of the Commissioner of Insurance for the Mississippi
    Insurance Department, which indicates that it was the policy of the
    Mississippi Insurance Department to withhold its approval from
    insurance policies containing arbitration clauses.3
    The district courts’ conclusions that the FAA, as applied to
    insurance    contracts,   has   not   been   reverse   preempted   by   the
    McCarran-Ferguson Act in Mississippi is a legal question we review
    de novo. See e.g., Moore v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co, 
    267 F.3d 1209
    , 1220 (11th Cir. 2001). “By its terms, the [McCarran-Ferguson
    Act] permits a state law to reverse pre-empt a federal statute only
    if:   (1) the federal statute does not specifically relate to the
    ‘business of insurance,’ (2) the state law was enacted for the
    ‘purpose of regulating the business of insurance,’ and (3) the
    federal statute operates to ‘invalidate, impair, or supersede’ the
    state law.     There is no question that the FAA does not relate
    specifically to the business of insurance.             Thus, we need only
    3
    Apparently this is no longer the policy of the Commissioner
    of Insurance.
    15
    address the last two requirements.”       Munich Am. Reinsurance Co. v.
    Crawford, 
    141 F.3d 585
    , 590 (5th Cir. 1998).
    The only enactments identified by Beasely in support of her
    contention that the FAA has been reverse-preempted are Miss. Code.
    Ann. § 83-53-294 and Miss. Code. Ann. § 83-53-15.5       Neither of these
    statutes address the propriety of arbitration clauses in insurance
    contracts, they are simply general statutes vesting regulatory
    authority   over   insurance   in   the   Commissioner    of   Insurance.
    Clearly, the FAA does not directly impair either of these statutes.
    A conclusion that these general statutes reverse-preempted the FAA
    would be equivalent to a conclusion that all federal laws which
    could potentially indirectly affect the regulation of insurance
    have been preempted.    Beasely provides no argument or authority
    4
    Section 83-53-29 provides: “The commissioner may, after
    notice and hearing, issue any rules and regulations that he deems
    necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter or to
    eliminate devices or plans designed to avoid or render ineffective
    the provisions of this chapter. The commissioner may require such
    information as is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of this
    chapter.    All rules and regulations adopted and promulgated
    pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the Mississippi
    Administrative Procedures Law.”
    5
    Section 83-53-29 provides, in pertinent part: “All policies,
    certificates of insurance, notices of proposed insurance,
    applications for insurance, endorsements and riders delivered or
    issued for delivery in this state, and the schedules of premium
    rates pertaining thereto, shall be filed with the commissioner for
    his approval prior to use.     If after filing, the commissioner
    notifies the insurer that the form is disapproved, it is unlawful
    for the insurer to issue or use the form.”
    16
    supporting such a sweeping result.
    As noted above, Beasely appears to rely on a declaration from
    the Commissioner of Insurance, indicating that it was his policy to
    withhold his approval from insurance forms containing arbitration
    clauses.    As   an   initial   matter,    it   is   undisputed    that   the
    arbitration clause at issue was not in an insurance contract, it
    was in a loan agreement.        Nonetheless language in the McCarran-
    Ferguson   Act   evinces   Congress’     unambiguous   intent     to   accord
    reverse-preemptive effect solely to “enact[ed]” state law. Beasely
    has provided no argument or authority to the contrary.
    CONCLUSION
    In light of the foregoing analysis, we AFFIRM.
    17