on the contention that there is no "actual case or controversy" between Carlson and the mov-ants. (Mem. in Supp. of Rule 12(b) Mot. to Dismiss by NAC, Scor, Sorema, and Munich at 4-7; Mem. of Law in Supp. of TIG's Mot. to Dismiss at 6-8 (and Reply in Supp. of TIG's Mot. to Dismiss at 5-7); Mem. in Supp. of Rule 12(b) Mot. to Dismiss by Swiss America and Swiss at 4-6; Mem. of Law in Supp. of General and Genesis’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 7-10.) The movants’ argument that there is no actual case or controversy amounts to the contention that there is a "lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239-41, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937); Medtronic, Inc. v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 468 F.Supp. 1132, 1134 (D.Minn.1979) (<HOLDING>). 6 . It is "widely recognized that [the]
holding that the ninetyday filing requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and is subject to equitable tolling holding that a coa is a jurisdictional prerequisite holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that the requirement of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the constitution holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured