Julie Schulz Halbower v. Hiscox Syndicate 33 of Lloyd's of London

── Julie Schulz Halbower v. Hiscox Syndicate 33 of Lloyd's of London ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0161p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ JULIE SCHULZ HALBOWER, Trustee of Halbower │ Legacy Trust, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, > No. 25-1152 │ │ v. │ │ HISCOX SYNDICATE 33 OF LLOYD’S OF LONDON, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:22-cv-00964—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge. Argued: December 11, 2025 Decided and Filed: May 29, 2026 Before: STRANCH, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Kevin K. Russell, RUSSELL & WOOFTER LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Alexander W. Ross, CLYDE & CO US LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Kevin K. Russell, GOLDSTEIN, RUSSELL & WOOFTER LLC and RUSSELL & WOOFTER LLC, Washington, D.C., Ronald G. DeWaard, Brion B. Doyle, VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant. Alexander W. Ross, Clinton E. Cameron, CLYDE & CO US LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee. READLER, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which STRANCH, J., concurred, and BUSH, J., concurred in the result. BUSH, J. (pp. 13–15), delivered a separate concurring opinion.  No. 25-1152 Halbower v. Hiscox Syndicate 33 of Lloyd’s of London Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ READLER, Circuit Judge. Julie Schulz Halbower, in her capacity as trustee of her family trust, sued her insurer for breach of contract based on a denial of insurance coverage. The district court dismissed the action due to the complaint’s lack of merit. On appeal, we take a different course. Because the parties did not adequately plead facts necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction, we remand the case to the district court to conduct further jurisdictional discovery. I. Understanding today’s case requires an understanding of the complexities of Lloyd’s of London, a “venerable” and familiar United Kingdom–based financial institution. Certain Interested Underwriters v. Layne, 26 F.3d 39, 41 (6th Cir. 1994). Yet that task may not be as easy as it seems. Lloyd’s business structure is unlike those we are familiar with on this side of the Atlantic. See id. (describing Lloyd’s as “shrouded in the corporate vagaries of British law”). To unravel these corporate complexities, turn back the calendar to mid–17th century England, when coffee was introduced to the nation. Entrepreneur Edward Lloyd opened a coffee house in London, near the River Thames. Coffee and Commerce, Lloyd’s, https://perma.cc/A58G-G9BN (last visited Mar. 26, 2026). From its earliest days, the café’s clientele frequented Lloyd’s for more than just a warm drink. Lloyd, it turns out, was also known for his vast knowledge of the shipping business: He