Cindy Bunker v. Midstate Mutual Insurance Company, et al.

2014 DNH 161

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: July 28, 2014
• Docket: 14-cv-274-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Cindy Bunker

v. Civil No. 14-cv-274-PB Opinion No. 2014 DNH 161 Midstate Mutual Insurance Company, et al.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Cindy Bunker was injured at a Nashua, New Hampshire rental

property owned by Brian Nadeau. She sued Nadeau for negligence

and later brought a separate insurance coverage action in state

court against Nadeau, a New Hampshire resident, and his insurer,

Midstate Insurance Company, a New York corporation. Midstate

removed the insurance coverage action to this court.

Bunker has filed a motion to remand, arguing that the court

lacks diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over the insurance

coverage action because she and Nadeau are both residents of New

Hampshire. Midstate has responded by claiming that the parties

should be realigned for jurisdictional purposes because she and

Nadeau share a common interest in obtaining coverage for Bunker

under the Midstate policy. For jurisdictional purposes, I must look beyond the

pleadings and arrange the parties according to their actual

interests in the dispute. See City of Indianapolis v. Chase

Nat’l Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 75 n.4 (1941) (in determining diversity

of citizenship, “the parties must be aligned according to their

‘attitude towards the actual and substantial controversy’”

(quoting Sutton v. English, 246 U.S. 199, 204 (1918))). As

Midstate contends, Bunker and Nadeau have the same interests

here. That they are adverse parties in a separate state court

negligence action is of no matter. See Scotts Co. LLC v. Seeds,

Inc., 688 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (“When considering the

primary purpose of a federal case in a realignment inquiry, a

court may not consider claims made in a different case.”).

I am guided by Littlefield v. Acadia Ins. Co., 392 F.3d 1,

4 n.2 (1st Cir. 2004), in which the plaintiff named an insurance

policy holder as a defendant in his declaratory judgment action

seeking coverage for his injuries. Since both the plaintiff and

the policy holder were residents of New Hampshire, the inclusion

of the policy holder would normally have defeated diversity

jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the First Circuit, noting the

identical interests and relief sought by the plaintiff and

policy holder, realigned these parties and permitted the

district court to assert jurisdiction over the matter. Id. 2 (citing Indianapolis, 314 U.S. at 75 n.4).

The same logic applies here. Both Bunker and Nadeau seek a

declaration that Midstate is obligated to provide coverage -

Bunker in the initial claim, and Nadeau in a crossclaim against

Midstate.1 As in Littlefield, Bunker and Nadeau have the same

interests in this dispute. Because diversity of citizenship

exists after the parties are realigned according to their

interests, I deny Bunker’s motion to remand. Doc. No. 9.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

July 28, 2014

cc: Thomas E. Craig, Esq. James E. Fiest, Esq. Adam R. Mordecai, Esq. Doreen F. Connor, Esq. Kevin G. Collimore, Esq.

1 Nadeau’s crossclaim requests a declaration “that the Midstate policy applies to the Plaintiff’s claim and provides coverage for [Bunker’s] claims against Brian Nadeau.” Doc. No. 8. 3