dissent calls attention to the proper role which Congress should be filling (but has failed to fill) in providing the proper guidelines for jurisdictional determinations in the unincorporated, non-trust entity context. See Carden, 494 U.S. at 198-199, 110 S.Ct. at 1022-23 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). It is obvious that clearer, more appropriate guidelines must be dictated for diversity jurisdiction determinations in contexts such as this, either by Congress or by the Supreme Court. The issue of how to categorize Lloyd’s syndicates for jurisdictional purposes has not yet been addressed by the Third Circuit. The Sixth Circuit, on the other hand, has addressed the issue of citizenship of a Lloyd’s syndicate. See Certain Interested Underwriters v. Layne, 26 F.3d 39 (6th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). While the decision of the Sixth Circuit is
holding that citizenship of active underwriters and names with lloyds london had to be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal holding that by applying the real party in interest test in conjunction with tennessees law concerning suits involving principal and agent only the underwriters should be included for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction recognizing that a narrow reading of missouri would suggest that the state is the real party in interest for diversity purposes only when the relief sought inures to the benefit of the state alone but noting that cases have only required a real interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the litigation holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes