Higashiguchi

Budget Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Higashiguchi

Good Law
109 F.3d 1471·97 Daily Journal DAR 4228·1997 WL 142255·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6030·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2357
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 31, 1997Nos. 94-15932, 94-16510California1,676 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Canby, J.

Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. sought in federal court a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Alan Stauber or Tammie Deponte for the injuries George and Sharon Higashiguchi sustained in an incident involving a Budget rental car. The district court found that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $50,000 jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 , and granted the Higashiguchis’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Budget appeals the dismissal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse the district court’s dismissal of Budget’s action because Budget may aggregate its multiple claims against each defendant to reach the jurisdictional amount.

*1473 I.

We recite the facts as accepted by the district court for purposes of its decision. In March 1992, Stauber rented a car from Budget. Under the terms of the Rental Agreement that Stauber signed, Budget extended to Stauber and to any other Authorized Driver liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage. In accordance with Hawaii law, the liability coverage under the Rental Agreement required Budget to indemnify its insureds for “not less than $35,-000…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.