equitable relief pertaining to the enforcement of insurance policies, the face value of the policy is the measure of the amount in controversy. While Krell contends that the measure should be the cash surrender value or some other figure, courts have uniformly held that, where the validity of the policy is at issue, the proper measure is the face value. See, e.g., Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Soc’y, 320 U.S. 238, 240, 64 S.Ct. 5, 6, 88 L.Ed. 15 (1943) ($1,000 face value of insurance certificate, not the $202 in premiums, satisfied amount in controversy requirement in action concerning certificate purchased as a result of fraudulent misrepresentations); Stephenson v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 92 F.2d 406, 410 (4th Cir.1937) (life insuranc . 95-4393, at 5 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 1996) (<HOLDING>) Lindsay v. Kvortek, 865 F.Supp. 264, 276
holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims holding that district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a coplaintiff claim that fails to meet the amount in controversy requirement 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 the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction holding minimum amount in controversy required for district court jurisdiction is 20001