The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's
The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Lloyd's London)
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-00734
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Travelers v. Lloyd’s London, Judge Furman ordered Travelers to amend its complaint to properly allege citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
Travelers must amend its complaint to allege the citizenship of each syndicate connected to the policy. Lloyd’s is affected because the court required information about its constituent syndicates, but the court did not decide the underlying insurance dispute.
What happened
The Travelers Indemnity Company sued Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (Lloyd’s London) in federal court, relying on the parties’ citizenship. The complaint described Lloyd’s as a corporation domiciled in England but did not identify a lead underwriter or the citizenship of each syndicate connected to the policy.
The court found that these allegations did not adequately show that all parties were citizens of different states or countries. It ordered Travelers to amend the complaint by June 24, 2024, to allege the citizenship of each constituent syndicate. The court warned that it may dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction if Travelers does not do so.
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order on June 10, 2024. The order addressed only whether the complaint properly established the court’s power to hear the case; it did not decide the parties’ underlying insurance dispute.
The detailed version
- The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's · No. 1:24-cv-00734
- Jesse Furman
- June 10, 2024
Background
The Travelers Indemnity Company brought this action against Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, invoking federal diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain lawsuits between citizens of different states or between a state citizen and a citizen or subject of a foreign country.
The complaint alleged that Lloyd’s was “a corporation domiciled in England authorized to issue insurance policies in the State of New York.” The court explained, however, that Lloyd’s is an unincorporated insurance marketplace made up of anonymous underwriters. Those underwriters are organized into syndicates, and Lloyd’s has the citizenship of each of its members. When a Lloyd’s lead underwriter is sued in a representative capacity, every syndicate represented by that lead underwriter must be completely diverse from the opposing party.
Jurisdictional Deficiency
The complaint did not identify a lead underwriter or allege the citizenship of the syndicates connected to the relevant policy, identified as Policy No. FINFR2104307. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to adequately allege complete diversity of citizenship.
Lloyd’s had filed a disclosure statement identifying the syndicates for the policy. The disclosure provided citizenship information for many, but not all, of the syndicates. The court stated that these disclosures did not change the complaint’s failure to allege complete diversity.
Order
The court ordered Travelers to amend the complaint by June 24, 2024, to allege the citizenship of each constituent syndicate. If Travelers does not adequately allege the parties’ citizenship by that date, the court may dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, meaning the court may conclude that it lacks legal authority to hear the case. Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide the underlying insurance dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.