NOTICE: ALL CHECKS ISSUED BY DICK LAW FIRM MUST BE VERIFIED BY ROBBIE FREDERICK, DEANNA DICK OR ERIC DICK
Skip to Content
Dick Law Firm, PLLC Dick Law Firm, PLLC
Call Us Today! 833-774-4487
Top

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Reverses Lower Court in Sentry Insurance v. James J. Morgan

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Reverses Lower Court in Sentry Insurance v. James J. Morgan

Background and Legal Context
Sentry Insurance, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James J. Morgan, doing business as Morgan & Son Racing Engines, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23-10888.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 7, 2024.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:22-CV-1185.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Introduction

Sentry Insurance appealed the district court's dismissal of its petition to appoint an umpire for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment, remanding it for additional proceedings.

Case Background

James J. Morgan operates Morgan & Son Racing Engines. On December 7, 2020, Morgan’s properties sustained wind and hail damage. Sentry Insurance, which covered these properties, estimated the damage at $190,768.33 and paid Morgan $61,026.93 after deductions. Morgan claimed a higher loss of $499,832.29 for building damage and $40,593.76 for contents, demanding an additional $349,657.22 from Sentry, which refused.

The insurance policy included an appraisal clause for disagreements over the amount of loss, requiring each party to appoint an appraiser and, if necessary, a court-appointed umpire. After failing to agree on an umpire, Sentry petitioned the district court to appoint one, which Morgan moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the petition did not meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The district court agreed and dismissed the petition, leading to Sentry’s appeal.

Court's Analysis and Rulings

Jurisdiction & Standard of Review

The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo for legal conclusions and for clear error in factual findings.

Amount in Controversy

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal jurisdiction requires an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The district court held that the value of appointing an umpire could not be assessed, as appraisers had not yet made estimates. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, stating that the right to continue the appraisal process and resolve the $349,657.22 dispute was the amount in controversy, meeting the jurisdictional requirement.

Justiciability & Civil Action

Morgan raised new arguments on appeal, questioning whether the petition presented a justiciable case or controversy under Article III and whether it constituted a "civil action" under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Fifth Circuit remanded these issues to the district court for consideration, noting the appellate court's role as one of review, not first view.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the petition met the amount-in-controversy requirement. The case was remanded for the district court to address additional jurisdictional arguments raised by Morgan.

Keywords

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Sentry Insurance, James J. Morgan, subject matter jurisdiction, amount in controversy, diversity jurisdiction, appraisal process, insurance dispute, wind and hail damage, umpire appointment, legal precedent, civil action, Article III, remand.

Meta Tags

Meta Title: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Reverses Lower Court in Sentry Insurance v. James J. Morgan

Meta Description: The Fifth Circuit reverses the district court's dismissal in Sentry Insurance v. James J. Morgan, ruling that the petition meets the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction, and remands for further proceedings on additional jurisdictional issues.