face value, plus value of double indemnity feature, was amount in controversy in suit seeking declaratory relief restoring policy to force); Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Muniz, 101 F.3d 93, 94 (11th Cir.1996) (face value of policy, not loan value, cash surrender value, or paid-up value of polices, was amount in controversy in insurer’s action seeking cancellation of life insurance policies); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Swift, 38 F.2d 175, 176-77 (5th Cir.1930) (same). 14. The Supreme Court had held that each member of a class action must meet the amo . 358, 363 (D.N.J.1996) (same); Vairo Affirm, (observing that plain meaning of section 1367 supports finding that section 1367 overruled Zahn); see also Stromberg Metal Works v. Press Mechanical, Inc., 77 F.3d 928, 930 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Gandolfo v. U-Haul International, Inc., Civ.
holding that the requirement of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the constitution holding that tennessee electric power co v tva 306 us 118 59 sct 366 83 led 543 1939 had improperly conflated the merits question of whether the plaintiff inthat case had a cause of action with the justiciability question of whether the plaintiff had standing to raise a federalism challenge holding that a plain reading of section 1367 overrules zahn holding that district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a coplaintiff claim that fails to meet the amount in controversy requirement holding that by its plain meaning section 1367 overrules clark v paul gray inc 306 us 583 59 sct 744 83 led 1001 1939 in which the supreme court held in a nonclass action case that each plaintiffs claim must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement