Lloyd's Acceptance Corp., et al v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4131539] [13-8042, 13-8043]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-8042
___________________________
Lloyd's Acceptance Corp., doing business as Lloyd's Development Company;
Affordable Communities of Missouri, a California Limited Partnership
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents
v.
Affiliated FM Insurance Company
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
___________________________
No. 13-8043
___________________________
Lloyd's Acceptance Corp., doing business as Lloyd's Development Company;
Affordable Communities of Missouri, a California Limited Partnership
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents
v.
Affiliated FM Insurance Company
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

Appellate Case: 13-8042

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/10/2014 Entry ID: 4131539

____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: January 20, 2014
Filed: March 10, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After denying motions for summary judgment brought by Affiliated FM
Insurance Co. and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, the district
court certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether it erred because an
elevator servicer's knowledge of equipment conditions may be imputed to the elevator
owner for purposes of an insurance claim. The insurance companies now seek
permission to file an interlocutory appeal on this question under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
A district court may certify a question for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b)
only where "it is of the opinion that (1) the order involves a controlling question of
law; (2) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) certification will
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Union Cnty., Iowa v.
Piper Jaffray & Co., Inc., 525 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (internal
quotation marks omitted). These requirements are jurisdictional, and the court cannot
allow an interlocutory appeal unless each of them is met. Id. at 645–46. Even if the
requirements are satisfied, we may deny appeal for any reason. Id. at 646.

-2-

Appellate Case: 13-8042

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/10/2014 Entry ID: 4131539

The insurance companies present no Missouri authority supporting the
imputation of knowledge about elevator equipment conditions from servicer to owner
in this context. Since "a dearth of cases does not constitute substantial ground for
difference of opinion," Id. at 647, the companies fail to satisfy the requirements of
§ 1292(b). We therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
certifying this interlocutory appeal, and we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See id.
at 647–48.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 13-8042

Page: 3

Date Filed: 03/10/2014 Entry ID: 4131539