UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 01-60835
Summary Calendar
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
KATIE FAIR BEASLEY
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60836
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
DWAYNE BROWN
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60837
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
BETTY BURNETT
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60838
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
ORA CAIN
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60839
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
MELISSA CARTER
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60840
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
2
ZINNIE MAE COLLINS
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60841
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
JESSIE COLVIN
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60842
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
MATTIE LEE CONNER
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60843
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
J C DOSS
3
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60850
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
WILLIAM DAVIS
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60851
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LEONARD CHARLES NAYLOR
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60853
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LOUISE HARRELL
Defendant - Appellant.
4
__________________
No. 01-60854
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
KAREN HARRIS
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60855
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
MARGARET WATT HARRISON
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60856
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
EDDIE HEARD; TORSHA HEARD
Defendants - Appellants.
__________________
5
No. 01-60857
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
JACQUELINE HICKS-RANDLE
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60858
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
EMMA HILL
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60859
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LOUISE HOWARD
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60860
6
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
BOBBY C JOHNSON; LARRY JOHNSON
Defendants - Appellants.
__________________
No. 01-60861
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
ARETHA CLARK JORDAN; JAMES M JORDAN
Defendants - Appellants.
__________________
No. 01-60862
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
KAREN BOYD MCFARLAND; JORDAN T MCFARLAND
Defendants - Appellants.
__________________
No. 01-60863
__________________
7
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
ROSIE MARTIN
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60864
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
THALMUS R MORGAN
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60866
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
KATHY MOSIER
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60867
__________________
8
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
BOBBY NASH
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60868
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
REBECCA NAYLOR
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60869
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
UNDRA SAWYER
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60870
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
9
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
DELOIS SLEDGE
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60871
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LINDA FAYE SMITH
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60872
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
PRESTON TALLIE
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60873
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
10
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LEXIE TATE
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60874
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LEROY WATT
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60875
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LES WILBON
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60876
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
11
v.
ARTHUR LEE WILLIAMS
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________
No. 01-60877
__________________
AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LAKIESHA YOUNG
Defendant - Appellant.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen
1:00-CV-375-D-A
______________________________________________
May 22, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants Katie Beasley, Dwayne Brown, Betty Burnett, Ora
Cain, Melissa Carter, Zinne Mae Collins, Jessie Colvin, Mattie Lee
Conner, J.C. Doss, William Davis, Leonard Charles Naylor, Louise
Harrell, Karen Harris, Margaret Watt Harrison, Eddie Heard, Torsha
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
12
Heard, Jacqueline Hicks-Randle, Emma Hill, Louise Howard, Bobby
Johnson, Larry Johnson, Aretha Clark-Jordan, James Jordan, Rosie
Martin, Karen Boyd McFarland, James McFarland, Thalmus Morgan,
Kathy Mosier, Bobby Nash, Rebecca Naylor, Undra Sawyer, Deloise
Sledge, Linda Faye Smith, Preston Tallie, Lexie Tate, Leroy Watt,
Les Wilbon, Arthur Lee Williams and Lakiesha Young (collectively
“Beasley”) filed suit against Appellees American Heritage Life
Insurance Company and First Colonial Insurance Company in
Mississippi state court (collectively “Heritage”). Heritage then
filed the instant actions pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, seeking to stay
the state court proceedings and compel arbitration. In separate
orders, the district courts for the Northern and Southern districts
of Mississippi granted Heritage this relief. Beasley appeals and
we affirm.
DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent
jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate
claims. It is incumbent on all federal courts to dismiss an action
whenever it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.
This is the first principle of federal jurisdiction.” Stockman v.
Fed. Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation
omitted). As the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Beasely
bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is proper. Id.
13
9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) provides jurisdiction over appeals from
“final decision[s] with respect to an arbitration.” Interpreting
9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) in Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S.
79 (2000), the Supreme Court held that Congress intended the term
final decision in Section 16(a)(3) to have its ordinary meaning, to
wit, “a decision that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
nothing more for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Id. at
86. Here, the only issue before the district court was whether to
compel arbitration. When it did so, there was nothing more for it
to do but execute judgment.
Heritage contends that the district court stayed the federal
action and that therefore the order compelling arbitration was not
final. See Randolph, 531 U.S. at 87 n.2 (“Had the District Court
entered a stay instead of a dismissal in this case, that order
would not be appealable.”).2 This factual contention is not
supported by the record. Heritage did not request a stay of the
federal proceedings and the district court order does not provide
for one; because, unlike in Randolph, the federal action did not
contain any substantive claims, there was nothing for the district
courts to dismiss. Accordingly, we conclude that we have
jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
B. McCarran-Ferguson Act
Beasely contends that section two of the Federal Arbitration
2
We express no opinion on the question whether the district
court had discretion to enter such a stay.
14
Act (the “FAA”) has been reverse preempted. See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (“A
written provision in any...contract...to settle by arbitration a
controversy thereafter arising out of such contract...shall be
valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”).
In so arguing, Beasely relies on the McCarran-Ferguson act and a
declaration of the Commissioner of Insurance for the Mississippi
Insurance Department, which indicates that it was the policy of the
Mississippi Insurance Department to withhold its approval from
insurance policies containing arbitration clauses.3
The district courts’ conclusions that the FAA, as applied to
insurance contracts, has not been reverse preempted by the
McCarran-Ferguson Act in Mississippi is a legal question we review
de novo. See e.g., Moore v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co, 267 F.3d
1209, 1220 (11th Cir. 2001). “By its terms, the [McCarran-Ferguson
Act] permits a state law to reverse pre-empt a federal statute only
if: (1) the federal statute does not specifically relate to the
‘business of insurance,’ (2) the state law was enacted for the
‘purpose of regulating the business of insurance,’ and (3) the
federal statute operates to ‘invalidate, impair, or supersede’ the
state law. There is no question that the FAA does not relate
specifically to the business of insurance. Thus, we need only
3
Apparently this is no longer the policy of the Commissioner
of Insurance.
15
address the last two requirements.” Munich Am. Reinsurance Co. v.
Crawford, 141 F.3d 585, 590 (5th Cir. 1998).
The only enactments identified by Beasely in support of her
contention that the FAA has been reverse-preempted are Miss. Code.
Ann. § 83-53-294 and Miss. Code. Ann. § 83-53-15.5 Neither of these
statutes address the propriety of arbitration clauses in insurance
contracts, they are simply general statutes vesting regulatory
authority over insurance in the Commissioner of Insurance.
Clearly, the FAA does not directly impair either of these statutes.
A conclusion that these general statutes reverse-preempted the FAA
would be equivalent to a conclusion that all federal laws which
could potentially indirectly affect the regulation of insurance
have been preempted. Beasely provides no argument or authority
4
Section 83-53-29 provides: “The commissioner may, after
notice and hearing, issue any rules and regulations that he deems
necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter or to
eliminate devices or plans designed to avoid or render ineffective
the provisions of this chapter. The commissioner may require such
information as is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of this
chapter. All rules and regulations adopted and promulgated
pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the Mississippi
Administrative Procedures Law.”
5
Section 83-53-29 provides, in pertinent part: “All policies,
certificates of insurance, notices of proposed insurance,
applications for insurance, endorsements and riders delivered or
issued for delivery in this state, and the schedules of premium
rates pertaining thereto, shall be filed with the commissioner for
his approval prior to use. If after filing, the commissioner
notifies the insurer that the form is disapproved, it is unlawful
for the insurer to issue or use the form.”
16
supporting such a sweeping result.
As noted above, Beasely appears to rely on a declaration from
the Commissioner of Insurance, indicating that it was his policy to
withhold his approval from insurance forms containing arbitration
clauses. As an initial matter, it is undisputed that the
arbitration clause at issue was not in an insurance contract, it
was in a loan agreement. Nonetheless language in the McCarran-
Ferguson Act evinces Congress’ unambiguous intent to accord
reverse-preemptive effect solely to “enact[ed]” state law. Beasely
has provided no argument or authority to the contrary.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing analysis, we AFFIRM.
17