Accident Insurance Company v. Greg Kennedy Builder, Inc. et al
Order re: 30 Second Amended Complaint & 31 Brief. The Court concludes that damages would exceed $75,000 and that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Should the defendants wish to dispute the Court's conclusion, a motion to remand is due by 10/30/2015. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 10/19/2015. (tgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, )
) CIVIL ACTION 15-0306-WS-B
GREG KENNEDY BUILDER, INC.,
In response to the Court’s sua sponte questioning of its subject matter
jurisdiction, (Doc. 27), the plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint
specifying that the individual defendant has at all relevant times been a citizen
(and not merely a resident) of Alabama. (Doc. 30). The plaintiff has also filed a
demand letter from counsel for the underlying plaintiff, which communicates an
offer to settle for $1 million. (Doc. 31-1). While the superficiality of the letter
makes it difficult to accept that figure as the amount in controversy, the letter
details over $100,000 in medical bills and attaches a hospital bill (dated prior to
the filing of this action) for over $80,000. (Id. at 5-6). The Court concludes that
the monetary value of the benefit that would flow to the plaintiff from a
declaration that it owes its insured no duty to indemnify against the underlying
plaintiff’s damages would thus exceed $75,000 and that subject matter jurisdiction
therefore exists. Should the defendants wish to dispute the Court’s conclusion,
they are ordered to file and serve a fully briefed motion to remand on or before
October 30, 2015, failing which the case will remain in this forum.
DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October, 2015.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?