Computer Sciences Corporation v. Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Co.
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-01580
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Computer Sciences v. Endurance Risk Solutions, Judge Vyskocil ordered jurisdictional information about Lloyd’s underwriters by February 1, 2022.
Computer Sciences Corporation must provide information about the identities and citizenships of the individual Names participating in Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate No. 4711, or file a stipulation addressing jurisdiction. The defendants and the continuation of the action may be affected because the court warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
Computer Sciences Corporation sued Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Co. and other defendants in a federal insurance case. At the January 18, 2022 pretrial conference, the court questioned whether it had authority to hear the case because the complaint did not adequately identify the citizenship of the Lloyd’s underwriters involved.
The court explained that a Lloyd’s syndicate is an unincorporated group of individual underwriting members, known as Names. Because those individual members may determine whether the parties are completely diverse in a diversity case, the complaint needed to identify the Names participating in Syndicate No. 4711 and their citizenship. Computer Sciences Corporation’s counsel said it had served requests seeking that information.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered Computer Sciences Corporation to amend the complaint or file a stipulation addressing the Names’ citizenship and the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction by February 1, 2022. The court warned that failing to do so may result in dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Computer Sciences Corporation v. Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Co. · No. 1:20-cv-01580
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
Computer Sciences Corporation brought this action against Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Co., Homeland Insurance Company of New York, Aspen Insurance UK Limited, Aspen Insurance Limited for and on behalf of Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate No. 4711, Aspen Underwriter Limited for and on behalf of Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate, Aspen Managing Agency Limited for and on behalf of Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndication No. 4711, and Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate No. 4711.
At the initial pretrial conference on January 18, 2022, the court stated that it had a continuing obligation to determine whether federal jurisdiction existed. The court could not make that determination because the complaint did not adequately allege the citizenship of the underwriters from Lloyd’s of London who were members of Syndicate No. 4711.
Lloyd’s Citizenship Requirement
The court explained that “Lloyd’s” refers both to the Society and Corporation of Lloyd’s and to an insurance market operating in London. Lloyd’s syndicates are unincorporated groups of individual underwriting members, called “Names.” The court stated that underwriting is performed by those members individually, not by Lloyd’s or by the syndicate itself.
The court further explained that when a Lloyd’s lead underwriter is sued in a representative capacity, each Name represented by that lead underwriter must be completely diverse from the opposing parties in a diversity case. The complaint did not identify the Names participating in Syndicate No. 4711 or allege their citizenship. Counsel for Computer Sciences Corporation advised the court that requests for admission had been served concerning the Names’ identity and citizenship.
Order
The court ordered Computer Sciences Corporation, by February 1, 2022, to amend its complaint to allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction or file a stipulation addressing the citizenship of the Lloyd’s underwriters’ Names. The court warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not dismiss the action or otherwise decide the underlying insurance dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.