Laffer v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company
ORDER denying 5 --motion to remand to state court; granting 7 --motion to dismiss; denying as moot 14 --motion to stay. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 9/14/2017. (SKB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE A. LAFFER,
CASE NO. 8:17-cv-1926-T-23AEP
An under-insured motorist allegedly struck Jane Laffer’s vehicle and injured
Laffer, whom Metropolitan Casualty insures. In state court, Laffer sued (Doc. 2)
Metropolitan for breach of the insurance policy (Count I) and bad faith (Count II).
Metropolitan removed (Doc. 1) the action, and Laffer moves (Doc. 5) to remand
because the record purportedly fails to establish an amount in controversy likely
greater than $75,000. Also, Metropolitan moves (Doc. 7) to dismiss the bad-faith
claim, and Laffer moves (Doc. 14) to “abate” the claim.
I. Motion to remand
In accord with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Laffer alleges damages in
excess of $15,000 but declines to specify an amount. If a plaintiff declines to plead a
“specific amount of damages,” the defendant must proffer evidence sufficient to
show that the amount in controversy on the day of removal more likely than not
exceeded $75,000. Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.
2001). Although a demand letter unsupported by specific facts cannot establish the
amount in controversy, the demand letter in this instance states that Laffer
underwent an “L4-5 laminectomy with bilateral medical facetomies” on February 15,
2017. (Doc. 11 at 12) Laffer states that her unpaid medical bills from the surgery
“exceed $100,000.” (Doc. 11 at 12) The statement in the demand letter that Laffer
incurred more than $100,000 in expenses from the laminectomy establishes an
amount in controversy likely greater than $75,000.
II. Bad-faith claim
Correctly arguing that the bad-faith claim is premature, Metropolitan moves
(Doc. 7) to dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*
Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991), holds that “an
insured’s underlying first-party action for insurance benefits against the insurer
necessarily must be resolved favorably to the insured before the cause of action for
bad faith . . . can accrue.” 575 So. 2d at 1291; accord Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
753 So. 2d 1270, 1276 (Fla. 2000) (holding that a plaintiff cannot state a claim for
bad faith absent a “determination of liability and [damages] on the first-party
insurance contract”). The resolution of the breach-of-policy claim in Count I will
establish Metropolitan’s liability (if any) and Laffer’s damages (if any).
More than fourteen days after the motion to dismiss, no response appears.
Because Laffer’s statement that she owes more than $100,000 in medical
expenses from the laminectomy establishes an amount in controversy likely greater
than $75,000, the motion (Doc. 5) to remand is DENIED. Because the absence of a
determination of Metropolitan’s liability and Laffer’s damages precludes a bad-faith
claim at this time, Metropolitan’s motion (Doc. 7) to dismiss is GRANTED, and the
bad-faith claim in Count II is DISMISSED. The motion (Doc. 14) to abate the
bad-faith claim is DENIED AS MOOT.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 14, 2017.
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?