Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-0106, SECTION "F"
April 15, 2002
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
This lawsuit arises out of the denial of insurance coverage. The plaintiff, 730 Bienville Partnership, Ltd. asserts that the defendant, Assurance Company of America, wrongfully denied its claim for coverage under a commercial property insurance policy that Bienville purchased from Assurance. Bienville maintains that the standard policy contained additional business income coverage (the Civil Authority extension) for business losses where the physical damage was remote from the insured's premises. Bienville filed their claim under this provision after the Federal Aviation Administration closed all the United States airports after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Assurance denied Bienville's claim. As a result, Bienville filed a lawsuit in state court and Assurance subsequently removed the action based on federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Assurance now moves to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Bienville owns and operates the St. Louis and St. Ann hotels.
Section 1406(a) provides that when a suit is filed in an improper division or district, the Court shall dismiss or, if it be in the interest of justice, transfer the case to any division or district where venue is proper. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1406(a). In support of its motion to dismiss for improper venue under § 1406(a), Assurance relies on § 408(b)(3) of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act(the Act), Pub.L. 107-42 (2001) and argues that this section requires that all actions arising out of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks must be filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court does not agree.
Section 408(b)(3) of the Act provides that:
The United States District for the Southern District of New York shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all actions brought for any claim(including loss of property, personal injury, or death) resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001.
Section 408(b)(3) falls under Title IV — Victim Compensation.
Assurance would have the Court read § 408(b)(3) in isolation. The Court declines to do this. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 885 (5th Cir. 1998) ("In determining the meaning of [a] statute, [the Court] must look not only to the particular statutory language, but also to the statute as a whole, including its design, object, and policy."). When read as a whole, the Act clearly does not provide for claims such as those filed by the plaintiff. Section 403 which specifies the purpose of Title IV of the Act states:
It is the purpose of this title to provide compensation to any individual (or relatives of a deceased individual) who was physically injured or killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001.
The Act further states that eligible claimants under the Act include:
(A) an individual who — (i)was present at the World Trade Center, (New York, New York), the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), or the site of the aircraft crash at Shanksville, Pennsylvania at the time, or in the immediate aftermath, of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001; and (ii) suffered physical harm or death as a result of such an air crash; (B) and individual who was a member of the flight crew or a passenger on American Airlines flight 93 or 175, except that an individual identified by the Attorney General to have been a participant or conspirator in the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, or a representative of such individual shall not to be eligible to receive compensation under this title; or (C) in the case of a decedent who is an individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B), the personal representative of the decedent who files a claim on behalf of the decedent.
Section 405(c)(2). While the September 11, 2001 attacks are implicated, plaintiff's claim is primarily a breach of contract claim against an insurer for wrongful denial of coverage. Thus, the Act does not intend for such claims to be filed exclusively in Southern District of New York.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Transfer is DENIED.