Diversity jurisdiction; Whether there was complete diversity in this contract case; 28 USC § 1332(a)(2); Determining whether there was jurisdiction over an “unincorporated association” defendant; Carden v Arkoma Assocs; Comparing Certain Interested Underwriters v Layne

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] Holding that diversity jurisdiction in this insurance contract case depended on “the citizenship of each underwriting Name of” defendant-Hiscox Syndicate 33, the court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff-Trustee sued Hiscox for failure to pay on an insurance policy that had been obtained from the Lloyd’s marketplace for two paintings that were later destroyed in a fire. The policy was underwritten by Hiscox Syndicate 33, the managing agent for which is Hiscox Syndicate Limited. The district court dismissed the case because neither painting was specifically included on the list held by the Lloyd’s Broker. On appeal, the court sua sponte raised the issue of whether the diversity jurisdiction existed here. The parties, who assumed jurisdiction was satisfied based on § 1332(a)(2), submitted supplemental briefs on the issue. The court concluded that the Trustee was a citizen of New Hampshire. But the citizenship of Hiscox, an “unincorporated association,” was more complicated. Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Carden, the court held that “Hiscox’s citizenship is tied to the citizenship of each of its underwriting Names . . . the underwriting Names of the Syndicate, Hiscox, listed on the policy at issue.” The court “read Layne to hold that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, where the Syndicate is not listed on the insurance policy in question, only the citizenship of the plaintiff-Underwriters (as opposed to all underwriters in the Syndicate) is relevant.” Thus, diversity jurisdiction here depended “upon the citizenship of each underwriting Name of Hiscox Syndicate 33.” The district court “relied solely on the citizenship of the Syndicate’s Managing Agent” to assess diversity. The court concluded that “determining the citizenship of each underwriting Name of Hiscox Syndicate 33 would be best addressed by” the district court.