Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 48, 75 S. Ct. 151, 99 L. Ed. 59 (1954)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Florence R. Elbert (plaintiff), a citizen of Louisiana, was injured in an automobile accident in Louisiana allegedly due to the negligence of Mrs. S. W. Bowen, a Louisiana citizen. Mr. Bowen had an insurance policy through Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. (Lumbermen’s Mutual) (defendant), an Illinois corporation that did business in Louisiana. Instead of suing Mrs. Bowen for negligence, Elbert sued Lumbermen’s Mutual under Louisiana’s direct-action statute, which allowed an injured party to institute a direct legal action against an insurance company for a wrong done by the insured party. Elbert filed the lawsuit in federal district court, asserting that diversity jurisdiction existed because she was seeking damages that exceeded the amount-in-controversy requirement and because she and Lumbermen’s Mutual held diverse citizenship. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Elbert and Mrs. Bowen were both Louisiana citizens. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the diversity jurisdiction existed and remanding the case to the district court for trial. The district court found in favor of Lumbermen’s Mutual. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the federal district court had diversity jurisdiction over the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)
Concurrence (Frankfurter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.