## Facts

- A Greyhound bus and a pickup truck collided in Shasta County, California, causing two deaths and numerous injuries among bus passengers and others.
- Injured passengers filed tort suits in California state court seeking damages exceeding $1,000,000 against Greyhound, the bus driver, the pickup driver (Ellis Clark), and the truck’s owner/passenger (Kenneth Glasgow).
- State Farm insured Clark under a liability policy with limits of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per occurrence and a duty to defend covered actions.
- Anticipating aggregate claims far exceeding the $20,000 policy limit, State Farm deposited $20,000 into federal court and filed an action in the nature of interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (and also invoked Rule 22 and diversity).
- State Farm sought to require all claimants to litigate in one federal proceeding and to discharge State Farm from further obligations, including the duty to defend; alternatively, it sought a determination of no coverage and return of the deposited funds.
- The district court enjoined suits against State Farm and Clark and, on motion of Greyhound and its driver, extended the injunction to suits against them as well.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding unliquidated tort claimants were not “claimants” under § 1335 until they obtained judgments.

## Issues

1. Whether persons with unliquidated tort claims are “adverse claimants” under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 such that an insurer may file statutory interpleader before any claimant reduces a claim to judgment.
2. Whether, once interpleader is proper, a federal court may enjoin and centralize all litigation arising from the accident, including suits against other alleged tortfeasors not tied to the limited insurance fund.
3. Whether Article III permits statutory interpleader jurisdiction on “minimal diversity” (diversity between any two adverse claimants).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held statutory interpleader was available because unliquidated tort claimants who “may claim” against the policy qualify as “adverse claimants” under § 1335.
- The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s requirement that claimants must first obtain judgments against the insured.
- The Court held that Article III permits statutory interpleader jurisdiction based on minimal diversity among claimants.
- The Court held the district court’s injunction was overly broad: interpleader may protect the limited fund, but it cannot be used to halt and consolidate the entire accident tort litigation.
- The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit as to interpleader’s availability but affirmed the limitation on using interpleader to control litigation beyond claims to the fund.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, “claimants” include persons with unliquidated tort claims who “may claim” entitlement to a limited insurance fund; a stakeholder need not wait for judgments before seeking interpleader.
- For statutory interpleader, Article III’s diversity requirement is satisfied by minimal diversity: federal jurisdiction exists if any two adverse claimants are citizens of different states.
- Injunctive relief in interpleader (28 U.S.C. § 2361) must be limited to what is necessary to protect the stake and the stakeholder from multiple liability; it may restrain efforts to obtain more than a claimant’s share of the fund elsewhere.
- Interpleader is not a device to consolidate and adjudicate the entire underlying tort controversy against multiple alleged tortfeasors in a single federal forum.

## Conclusion

The Court permitted an insurer facing competing, unliquidated tort claims to use statutory interpleader and confirmed minimal diversity as constitutionally sufficient, but it limited interpleader remedies to administering and protecting the insurance fund and barred using interpleader injunctions to halt or consolidate broader accident-related tort litigation.


State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967)