the defendant’s breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay the claims do not raise a federal question and, therefore, removal was improper. The plaintiffs contend this is a private contractual dispute between an insured and a health cáre insurer and argue the well-pleaded complaint rule should govern this case. Removal of a state court action based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only if the action asserts a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. Ordinarily, as plaintiffs contend, a ease “arises under” federal law only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 391-92, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2428-29, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Under that rule, a ease cannot be removed
holding the presence or absence of federalquestion jurisdiction is governed by the veil pleaded complaint rule which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only where a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint holding that exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim holding that a claim not pleaded in the petition ie the complaint was not properly before the court on a motion for summary judgment holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage holding that where the statute of frauds is pleaded the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that a sufficient writing exists