United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. A & S Manufacturing Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
48 F.3d 131 (1995)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
A & S Manufacturing Co. (A & S) (defendant) contracted with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. (Fidelity) (plaintiff), Federal Insurance Company (Federal) (defendant), and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford) (defendant) for liability insurance. After environmental contamination at A & S sites, which was covered by the insurance contracts, the Environmental Protection Agency sued A & S to recover cleanup costs. A & S brought the insurance companies into the case for indemnity purposes. In response, Fidelity filed a lawsuit against A & S, Federal, and Hartford, seeking a declaration of the rights and duties of each party. Because complete diversity existed among the parties, Fidelity filed the lawsuit in federal district court through diversity jurisdiction. A & S filed a similar lawsuit against Fidelity, Federal, and Hartford in New Jersey state court. A & S also moved to realign the parties in the federal case. The district court applied the principal-purpose test, realigning the three insurance companies as plaintiffs and A & S as the defendant in the federal case. With the parties realigned, complete diversity no longer existed between the plaintiffs and defendants because A & S and Federal were both New Jersey citizens. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Fidelity appealed, arguing that the district court erred in using the principal-purpose test for realignment instead of the substantial-controversy test.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Butzner, 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.