Flynn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 16

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Remand to State Court. This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 2/17/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DEREK FLYNN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:17-cv-27-Orl-37KRS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 14), filed
January 18, 2017.
On November 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action for uninsured motorist benefits in
state court. (Doc. 2.) Defendant later removed the action on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 (“Notice of Removal”).) To establish the requisite amount in
controversy, the Notice of Removal references: (1) Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist policy
limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence; (2) Plaintiff’s demand letter
for $100,000; (3) Plaintiff’s past medical bills, which are in excess of $18,000; and (4) jury
verdicts in the amount of $116,085, $141,321, and $250,000 awarded to plaintiffs who
sustained injuries similar to the shoulder injuries alleged by Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 14, 19–
21.)
On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff moved for remand on the ground that Defendant’s
Notice of Removal failed to demonstrate the requisite amount in controversy by a
preponderance of the evidence. (Doc. 14.) In support, Plaintiff argues that: (1) to date, his
post-surgery medical bills only total $18,560; (2) Defendant failed to cite any case law

holding that policy limits are relevant in determining the amount in controversy; and (3) the
Court should give little weight to his pre-suit demand letter as Defendant has not shown
that it is a reasonable assessment of his claim. (Id.)
Under Local Rule 3.01(b), a party opposing a motion must file a response within
fourteen days after service of the motion. As Defendant has failed to respond within this
timeframe, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as unopposed and finds that it is due to
be granted. Importantly, the Court concludes that Defendant has not met its burden of
demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Hence the action is due to be remanded.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.

2.

This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida.

3.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and close the
case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on February 17, 2017.

Copies:

2

Counsel of Record
The Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida.

3