Clark v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois

Filing 9

ORDER: The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. The Clerk is further directed to terminate any previously scheduled deadlines and hearings, and thereafter close this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/26/2016. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RAYNELL CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-2666-T-33MAP

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court sua sponte. For the
reasons that follow, this case is remanded to the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.
Discussion
This action was removed to this Court from the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida on
September 16, 2016, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
(Doc. # 1). When jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of
citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires among other things
that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000,

exclusive

jurisdictional

amount

of
is

interest
not

and

costs.”

facially

apparent

If
from

“the
the

complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal and

1

may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at
the time the case was removed.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269
F.3d

1316,

unspecified,

1319

(11th

the

Cir.

removing

2001).

party

When

bears

“damages

the

burden

are
of

establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of
the evidence.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1208
(11th Cir. 2007).
The

Complaint

does

not

state

a

specified

claim

to

damages. (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 1) (stating “[t]his is an action based
on uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for damages in
excess of $15,000”). In its Notice of Removal (Doc. # 1),
Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois relies on a
pre-suit

demand

letter

to

establish

that

the

amount

in

controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.
(Id. at ¶ 9). In that letter, Plaintiff Raynell Clark demanded
the policy limits of $100,000 and listed damages totaling
approximately $130,000. (Id., Ex. B at 5). Because the demand
letter outlines damages in excess of $75,000, Safeco contends
that it has established the amount in controversy by the
preponderance of the evidence.
The Court disagrees. Demand letters do not automatically
establish the amount in controversy. Lamb v. State Farm Fire
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No.3:10-cv-615-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 6790539,

2

at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2010) (stating that demand letters
and settlement offers “do not automatically establish the
amount

in

controversy

for

purposes

of

diversity

jurisdiction”); Piazza v. Ambassador II JV, L.P., No. 8:10cv-1582-T-23EAJ, 2010 WL 2889218, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 21,
2010)). A review of the pre-suit demand letter shows that
Clark has only incurred $13,343 in medical bills thus far.
(Doc. # 1, Ex. B at 5). The remaining damages are divided
between $50,000 in loss of enjoyment of life and pain and
suffering, and $60,000 in future medical treatment for the
next twenty years. (Id.). As only $13,343 in economic damages
have been incurred, with the remaining damages speculative,
the letter’s demand for an amount over the $75,000 is an
aggressive

negotiating

tactic

rather

than

an

accurate

assessment of the amount in controversy.
In sum, the record does not show by a preponderance of
the

evidence

that

the

amount

in

controversy

exceeds

$75,000.00. The Complaint alleges a nonspecific amount and
the pre-suit demand letter is mere posturing because it
presents only proven damages of approximately $13,500, while
speculating that future medical costs and pain and suffering
damages will surpass the policy’s limits of $100,000. As such,
the Court determines Safeco has not sufficiently demonstrated

3

that the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy threshold has
not been satisfied. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

REMAND

this

case

to

the

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough
County, Florida.
(2)

The

Clerk

previously

is

further

scheduled

directed

deadlines

to

terminate

any

and

hearings,

and

thereafter CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
26th day of September, 2016.

4