Roberson et al v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
Filing
13
ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend and Remand 8 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' request to amend its complaint adding Arthur and Nancy Tye as parties is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' request for remand is DENIED. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/23/2015. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CHARLES ROBERSON, an
individual, and KAREN ROBERSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 5:15-cv-454-Oc-30PRL
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign insurance
company,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and
Remand (Doc. 8) and Defendant’s response in opposition (Doc. 10). The Court, having
considered the motion and response, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,
concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs initiated this action seeking declaratory judgment as to insurance
coverage. (Doc. 2). Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”) issued a
homeowners insurance policy to Plaintiffs. (Id., Ex. A). With Randy Skiver’s permission,
Plaintiffs kept cattle on his property. Id., Ex. C). Arthur and Nancy Tye own property
adjacent to Randy Skiver. (Id.). On June 7, 2011, Arthur Tye was allegedly attacked and
injured by a bull owned by Plaintiffs that escaped or passed through the fence separating
the Tye and Skiver properties. Plaintiffs reported the loss to USAA, who denied coverage
to Plaintiffs under several policy exclusions. (Doc. 1, Ex. B). The Tyes instituted an action
against Plaintiffs and Mr. Skiver for the personal injuries sustained by Arthur Tye as a
result of the June 7, 2011 incident. (Id., Ex. C). Consequently, Plaintiffs initiated this
action in the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, Florida, against USAA for
declaratory judgment regarding the extent of coverage under the insurance policy.
Originally, Arthur and Nancy Tye were not included as parties. On September 8, 2015,
USAA removed the action to this Court. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiffs currently seek to amend their complaint to add Arthur and Nancy Tye as
Defendants. (Doc. 8). Plaintiffs argue that the addition of the Tyes would defeat complete
diversity of the parties (as Plaintiffs and the Tyes are both Florida residents), and, following
amendment, Plaintiffs seek remand of this case to the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake
County, Florida. USAA consents to the addition of the Tyes as parties, but asserts that
remand is not necessary because the Tyes are nominal parties and their citizenship cannot
be used to defeat diversity. (Doc. 10). USAA also argues that the Tyes are more properly
aligned with Plaintiffs. (Id. at 6).
DISCUSSION
The Constitution and Congress limit a federal court’s jurisdiction by restricting the
types of cases which the federal courts may hear. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th
Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by 29 U.S.C § 1446. For this reason, statutes
authorizing removal of actions to federal courts are to be strictly construed against removal.
2
Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095. In fact, because federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, “there is
a presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all uncertainties as to
removal jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand.” Russell Corp. v. Am. Home
Assur. Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001).
Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions when the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different states. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity; every plaintiff must
be diverse from every defendant. The removing party bears the burden of demonstrating
that removal is proper. Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.
2001). However, for purposes of a diversity jurisdiction analysis, the citizenship of
“nominal” parties need not be considered. Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 460-61
(1980).
Here, the Court need not determine whether the Tyes are nominal parties because
the Tyes are more properly aligned as plaintiffs rather than defendants.
“Diversity
jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the federal courts by the parties’ own determination
of who are plaintiffs and who [are] defendants. It is [the] duty . . . of [all] federal courts,
to look beyond the pleadings and arrange the parties according to their sides in the dispute”
as determined by the principal purpose of the action. Northbrook Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Brewer,
493 U.S. 6, 16 n.5 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Indem. Ins. Co. of
N. Am. v. First Nat’l Bank at Winter Park, 351 F.2d 519, 522 (5th Cir. 1965). 1
1
In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.
3
The principal purpose of this case is to determine whether Plaintiffs’ claims are
covered by the homeowners insurance policy issued by USAA. Plaintiffs’ interests are not
adverse to the Tyes’ interests. Rather, in the posture of this case, Plaintiffs’ interests are
aligned with the Tyes’ interests because if Plaintiffs are successful against USAA, it will
ensure that the Tyes have access to insurance proceeds for any settlement or judgment that
may be obtained in the underlying tort action initiated by the Tyes. Thus, the Tyes are
more properly considered plaintiffs for jurisdictional purposes and their addition to the
action does not defeat diversity. See La Shangrila, Inc. v. Hermitage Ins. Co., No. 8:07cv-1133-T-24EAJ, 2007 WL 2330912, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2007) (concluding that
plaintiffs in underlying tort action should be aligned with the insured in an
insurance-coverage dispute for jurisdictional purposes); see also James River Ins. Co. v.
Arlington Pebble Creek, No. 1:13cv224-MW/GRJ, 2015 WL 4668700, at *5-6 (N.D. Fla.
July 30, 2015) (finding that insured and claimant were properly aligned as party defendants
in an action seeking to determine the extent of insurance coverage).
CONCLUSION
While Plaintiffs may amend their complaint to add the Tyes as parties, the addition
of the Tyes does not defeat diversity jurisdiction because the Tyes are more appropriately
aligned with Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and Remand (Doc. 8) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
4
2. Plaintiffs’ request to amend its complaint adding Arthur and Nancy Tye as parties
is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiffs’ request for remand is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 23rd day of November, 2015.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
5
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?