Certain underwriters at Lloyd’s brought suit in Florida federal court to seek adjudication of the binding effect of a purported settlement agreement it had entered with certain insureds. The insureds challenged the court’s jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss, asserting that Lloyd’s had to specifically allege the residence of each of the “names” actually sponsoring the insurance, for whom liability attaches severally under pertinent British statutory laws governing Lloyd’s. The trial court denied the motion. In Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn (Aug. 5, 2010), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Lloyd’s must allege each of the actual “names” bringing suit for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. In reaching its decision, the court detailed the history of Lloyd’s, its nature as an unincorporated association of “names” who sign on to particular risks, which are administered by “syndicates,” and the manner in which liability attaches to the “names,” akin to the members of a partnership.