Filed: Jun. 09, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 9, 2008 No. 08-30027 Charles R. Fulbruge III Summary Calendar Clerk TEAM ONE PROPERTIES LLC, c/o Larry Jackson Plaintiff - Appellant v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans USDC No. 2:07-CV-4493 Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Team
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 9, 2008 No. 08-30027 Charles R. Fulbruge III Summary Calendar Clerk TEAM ONE PROPERTIES LLC, c/o Larry Jackson Plaintiff - Appellant v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans USDC No. 2:07-CV-4493 Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Team O..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 9, 2008
No. 08-30027 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Summary Calendar Clerk
TEAM ONE PROPERTIES LLC, c/o Larry Jackson
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
USDC No. 2:07-CV-4493
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Team One Properties LLC purchased an insurance policy at Lloyds of
London. As this court has previously explained in detail, Lloyds is not an
underwriter of any of the policies, acting only as a facilitator for insurers and
insureds to engage each other. See Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP,
355 F.3d
853 (5th Cir. 2003).
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
No. 08-30027
At issue here is whether Team One is entitled to an additional $47,594.37
for its insurance claim. The risk of the $70,000 policy was divided among 4,435
underwriters. The district court found that Team One did not demonstrate that
the amount in controversy against any completely diverse underwriter was in
excess of the jurisdictional $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C.
ยง1332. We agree.
For the reasons stated by the district court, the dismissal is AFFIRMED.
2