Arboleda v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 25

ORDER denying 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Motion to Remand 15 is GRANTED. Defendant shall have up to and including September 1, 2017 to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 8/29/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DIEGO ARBOLEDA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-406-FtM-99CM

STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) filed
on August 3, 2017 and Plaintiff’s Corrected Supplement to Motion to Remand (Doc. 15).
Defendant filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 16) and Plaintiff replied (Doc. 24). For
the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff Diego Arboleda filed a Complaint (Doc. 2) in State Court
against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company involving
coverage for injuries Arboleda sustained in a car accident with State Farm’s insured,

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites.
These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked
documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or
products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to
some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

George Percifield. Before filing suit, the underlying tortfeasor tendered his bodily injury
policy limits of $50,000 to Plaintiff.
State Farm timely removed the case to this Court, citing diversity jurisdiction as the
basis for removal. (Doc. 1). Arboleda now moves to remand the case because State
Farm has not established the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff’s
motion to remand to state court challenges Defendant’s showing that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). District courts, therefore, remand to state court
any case that was “without the necessary jurisdiction.” Estate of Ayres ex rel. Strugnell
v. Beaver, 48 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 1999). “Where there is any doubt
concerning jurisdiction of the federal court on removal, the case should be remanded.” Id.
(internal quotations omitted).

The party seeking removal must meet the burden of

satisfying the jurisdictional requirements for removal. See Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc.,
269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001).
The removal statutes permit a defendant to move a case from state court to federal
court provided the case could have brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441
(governing removal), 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (establishing the procedure for accomplishing
removal). Federal courts have original jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is complete diversity of citizenship
among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d
1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000).

2

Where, as here, a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages in her
Complaint, the removing defendants must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional
requirement. Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 957, 972 (11th Cir. 2002);
Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319; Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d at 1281 n.5;
Tapscott v. MS Dealer Svc. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996), overruled on
other grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 957 (2000). Thus, the issue here is whether Defendant has shown that
it is more likely than not that as of July 19, 2017, the amount in controversy exceeded
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Ultimately, the question is whether the notice of
removal plausibly alleges that “the amount in controversy at the time of removal” exceeds
$75,000. S. Fla. Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 745 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2014).
DISCUSSION
In asserting the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal,
Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s May 2, 2017 and June 7, 2017 pre-suit demands (Doc. 11, Doc. 1-2), seeking the combined policy limits of $150,000 to settle the case. To support
the demands, Plaintiff described the accident, and listed his medical bills, which
amounted to $31,564.38, excluding charges of Gulf Coast Medical Center for a right hip
surgery. The May 2, 2017 demand also enclosed copies of medical records and bills that
specifically identify the injuries suffered by Arboleda. (Doc. 1-1 at 5.) Plaintiff also
attached a $50,028.61 bill from Lee Memorial Health System associated with the hip
surgery to the June 7, 2017 demand letter. (Doc. 1-2 at 3-4). Defendant states in its

3

Notice of Removal that combining the representations made in both Demands, Plaintiff’s
medical expenses totaled $81,592.99 at the time of removal. (Doc. 1, at 9-10).
In moving for remand, Plaintiff argues that the amount of medical expenses should
be reduced/set-off by the payment to Plaintiff of PIP benefits, health insurance benefits,
or monies from other collateral sources. In support, Plaintiff offers medical bills and
statements, showing that the amount of charges Plaintiff actually incurred are significantly
less after the health insurance claims were processed and other amounts were reduced
prior to the date of removal.
A pre-suit demand letter “supported by documented medical bills and specific
medical diagnoses[ ]...may be sufficient to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.” Hernandez v. Burlington Coat Factory of Fla., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-403FTM-29CM, 2015 WL 5008863, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2015) (citing Scott v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 11-62426-CIV, 2012 WL 86986, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2012)).
Here, Plaintiff’s pre-suit demands not only references medical bills totaling $81,592.99
and attaches supporting documentation, it also lists multiple medically-diagnosed
conditions. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ pre-suit demands credibly supports
the conclusion that the value of Mr. Arboleda’s claim exceeded $75,000 at the time of
removal.2 Id.; see also Moraguez v. Walgreen Co., No. 6:15-CV-1579-ORL-28TBS, 2015

The amount of Arboleda’s out-of-pocket medical expenses is irrelevant to determining the value
of his claim, since, “[u]nder Florida law, a plaintiff is entitled to recover from a defendant the full
amount that the plaintiff’s medical providers have agreed to accept as payment for the treatment,
not just the amount for which the plaintiff is personally liable to those providers.” Daley v. Scott,
No. 2:15-CV-269-FTM-29DNF, 2016 WL 3517697, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2016) (emphasis
added) (citing Goble v. Frohman, 901 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2005); Coop. Leasing, Inc. v. Johnson,
872 So. 2d 956, 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). The amount in controversy is an estimate of the amount
that will be put at issue during the litigation, rather than a prediction of how much the plaintiff is
likely to recover. S. Florida Wellness, 745 F.3d at 1315. The amount of any award determined
by the trier of fact is later reduced by the amounts which have been paid for the benefit of the
2

4

WL 7863008, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2015).

Because Defendant has shown by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not
exceeds $75,000 at the time of removal, the Motion to Remand is denied.
Finally, although the Notice of Removal states that Defendant was served with the
Complaint on June 22, 2017 (Doc. 1, ¶ 9), the Court notes that no answer or other
responsive pleading has been filed. Therefore, the Court directs Defendant to do so.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is DENIED.
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Motion to Remand (Doc. 15) is GRANTED.
(3) Defendant shall have up to and including September 1, 2017 to file a response
to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 29th day of August, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record
claimant, or which are otherwise available to the claimant, from collateral sources. Fla. Stat. §
768.76(1). The Court disagrees that the reduction is determined by the Court at the time of
removal.
Further, to the extent that the parties rely on the policy limits as a valuation of the claim, it
is the value of the claim at issue, not the value of the policy limit that is considered for purposes
of determining the amount in controversy. See Martins v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., No. 08–60004–
CIV, 2008 WL 783762, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar.21, 2008) (collecting cases). See also Green v.
Travelers Indem. Co., No. 3:11–cv–922–J–37TEM, 2011 WL 4947499, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct.18,
2011); Fields v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 2:08–cv155–WKW, 2008 WL 2225756, at *2 (M.D. Ala.
May 28, 2008) (“The policy limit, although not irrelevant, does not establish the amount in
controversy where, as here, the policy holder has not alleged a total loss and instead alleges
damages in an amount well below the policy limit.”); Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Parking
Towing Co., Inc., No. 07–0684–WS–B, 2007 WL 4577705, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Dec.27, 2007) (“a high
policy limit does not establish a large amount in controversy for the simple reason that the
underlying claim may be for far less than the policy limit”).

5