U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 85— DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. § 1364

Direct actions against insurers of members of diplomatic missions and their families

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy, of any civil action commenced by any person against an insurer who by contract has insured an individual, who is, or was at the time of the tortious act or omission, a member of a mission (within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Diplomatic Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 254a(3))) or a member of the family of such a member of a mission, or an individual described in section 19 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946, against liability for personal injury, death, or damage to property.(b) Any direct action brought against an insurer under subsection (a) shall be tried without a jury, but shall not be subject to the defense that the insured is immune from suit, that the insured is an indispensable party, or in the absence of fraud or collusion, that the insured has violated a term of the contract, unless the contract was cancelled before the claim arose.(Added Pub. L. 95–393, § 7(a), Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 809; amended Pub. L. 97–241, title II, § 203(b)(4), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 291; Pub. L. 100–204, title I, § 138(a), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1347.)Editorial NotesCodification

Two other sections 1364 were renumbered sections 1365 and 1366 of this title.

Amendments

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–204 inserted “, or was at the time of the tortious act or omission,” after “who is”.

1982—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–241 substituted “within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Diplomatic Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 254a(3))” for “as defined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1987 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–204, title I, § 138(b), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1347, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to the first tortious act or omission occurring after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 22, 1987].”

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–241 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 204 of Pub. L. 97–241, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4301 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Effective Date

Section effective at end of ninety-day period beginning on Sept. 30, 1978, see section 9 of Pub. L. 95–393, set out as a note under section 254a of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co., 830 N.E.2d 1127 (NY 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co., 830 N.E.2d 1127 (NY 2005). · cites it 7× “Put differently, when these two statutes go head to head, does the driver’s immunity extinguish the vicarious liability of the owner? At issue is the scope of 28 USC § 1364 . That statute is part of the Diplomatic Relations Act, which requires members of a diplomatic mission to…”
Broidy Capital v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2019). “The DRA makes clear that a district court must dismiss “[a]ny action or proceeding brought against an individual who is entitled to immunity with respect to such action or proceeding 10 under the Vienna Convention.”
Carolyn Thomas v. Marion Barry, 729 F.2d 1469 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 1364 Appellants claim that this case, brought under the Home Rule Act, is within this court’s federal question jurisdiction.”
In the Matter of the Application of the United States Senate Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations. Appeal of William Cammisano, 655 F.2d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 4× “Ill 1979), 28 U.S.C. § 1364 (Supp. II 1978). By resolution the full Senate directed Senate Legal Counsel to “bring a civil action * * * to enforce the subcommittee’s subpena to William Cammisano * * *.”
Dimond v. Dist. of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1364 . Because the restrictions on the authority of the District of Columbia City Council embodied in sections 602(a)(4) and (a)(8) of the Self-Government Act would appear to apply exclusively to the District of Columbia, we find that sections 602(a)(4) and…”
Athridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 351 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1364 (allowing direct suit against the insurers of certain diplomatic personnel); Rivas I, 141 F.”
Windsor v. State Farm Ins., 509 F. Supp. 342 (D.D.C. 1981). · cites it 4× “Instead, this action was brought directly against the insurance carrier pursuant to Section 7 of the Diplomatic Relations Act, 1 which section has been codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1364 (Supp. II 1978). 2 The Diplomatic Relations Act (the Act) was designed, in part, to deal with the…”
Urlic v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 259 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs originally commenced an action in the Southern District of New York by invoking the subject matter jurisdic *3 tion conferred by 28 USC § 1364 , which provides a direct cause of action against the insurer of a member of a diplomatic mission, notwithstanding the…”
Renoldo L. Spivey v. Marion Barry, Jr., as Mayor of the Dist. of Columbia, Louline Green, Intervenor, 665 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “Congress has expressly embodied its agreement with this proposition in 28 U.S.C. § 1364 (Supp.III 1979): For the purposes of this chapter, references to the laws of the United States or Acts of Congress do not include laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.”
Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, United States House of Representatives v. Holder, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013). “The court’s narrow ruling that a Louisiana court therefore lacked jurisdiction over Senator Helms’s action has no bearing upon the case at hand.”
Tran Ex Rel. Est. of Le v. Carr, 708 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 3× “The defendants subsequently removed the case to this Court, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1364 (2006), a direct action statute granting federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction in any civil action, regardless of the amount in controversy, filed by any person against an insurer who…”
Green v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 321 F. Supp. 3d 368 (E.D.N.Y 2018). · cites it 4× “808 , codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1364 . As the court explains below, that provision authorizes an individual harmed by certain diplomatic personnel to sue the personnel's liability insurer directly.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.