Welsh v. General American Life Insurance Company

Filing 5

ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint containing appropriate jurisdictional allegations by May 31, 2018. Failure to do so will result in the entry of an Order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/23/2018. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
SUSAN WELSH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:18-cv-1227-T-33JSS

GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court sua sponte.

“A federal

court not only has the power but also the obligation at any
time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility
that jurisdiction does not exist arises.”

Fitzgerald v.

Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.
1985); Hallandale Prof’l Fire Fighters Local 2238 v. City of
Hallandale, 922 F.2d 756, 759 (11th Cir. 1991) (“Every federal
court operates under an independent obligation to ensure it is
presented with the kind of concrete controversy upon which its
constitutional grant of authority is based.”).
Moreover,
jurisdiction.

federal

courts

are

courts

of

limited

Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th

Cir. 1994). And, “because a federal court is powerless to act
beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a
court must zealously [e]nsure that jurisdiction exists over a

case, and should itself raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt
about jurisdiction arises.”

Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d

1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
Diversity Jurisdiction
It is axiomatic that “for federal diversity jurisdiction
to attach, all parties must be completely diverse and the
amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.”

Underwriters at

Lloyd’s London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th
Cir. 2010).

Here, the Complaint alleges: “This is a civil

action between citizens of different states for breach of an
insurance contract, for damages that exceed $75,000.00, over
which this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332.”

(Doc. # 1 at ¶ 1).

However, the Complaint provides an

incomplete picture of the parties’ citizenship. Specifically,
the

Complaint

states

that

Plaintiff

is

a

“resident”

of

Florida, rather than indicating that she is a citizen of
Florida. (Id. at ¶ 2). As explained in Molinos Valle Del
Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1342 n.12 (11th Cir.
2011), a complaint must allege citizenship, not residence, to
establish diversity for a natural person.
As

for

Defendant,

the

Complaint

alleges,

“General

American is a foreign corporation, authorized to do business
2

and at all times material hereto was doing business in the
State of Florida as an insurance company.” (Id. at ¶ 3).
These jurisdictional allegations are insufficient because a
corporation is a citizen of (1) its state of incorporation;
and

(2)

the

state

where

it

has

its

principal

place

of

business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Without knowing Defendant’s
state of incorporation and principal place of business, the
Court is unable to determine whether the requirements of
complete diversity have been satisfied.
In

addition,

although

the

Complaint

describes

the

Professional Occupational Disability Income Insurance Policy
of a physician, the amount in controversy has not been stated
with clarity in the Complaint. Count I of the Complaint seeks
relief for breach of contract, and Count II alleges bad faith
conduct. But, as stated in Symonette v. MGA Ins. Co., No. 12cv-21428, 2012 WL 12943077 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2012), "a claim
for bad faith . . . does not accrue until the underlying
first-party action for insurance benefits against the insurer
has been resolved in favor of the insured [and] a bad faith
cause of action cannot exist absent a determination that the
insurer is liable on the policy." Id. at *1.

The manner in

which Plaintiff describes her economic injuries does not
provide

the

Court

with

much
3

of

an

assurance

that

the

$75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold has been met.
Plaintiff

provides

a

lengthy

discussion

of

her

Although
alleged

disability and the claims process with Defendant, a closer
look

reveals

that

she

has

not

provided

any

concrete

information about the amounts she is seeking such that the
Court can be confident that the jurisdictional amount is
satisfied.
Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiff to file an
amended

complaint

containing

allegations by May 31, 2018.

appropriate

jurisdictional

Failure to do so will result in

the entry of an Order dismissing this case for lack of
jurisdiction.

See Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d

1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013)(“When a plaintiff files suit in
federal court, she must allege facts that, if true, show
federal subject matter jurisdiction over her case exists.
Those allegations, when federal jurisdiction is invoked based
on diversity, must include the citizenship of each party, so
that the court is satisfied that no plaintiff is a citizen of
the

same

state

as

any

defendant.

.

.

.

Without

such

allegations, district courts are constitutionally obligated to
dismiss the action altogether if the plaintiff does not cure
the deficiency.”).
Accordingly, it is
4

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff

is

directed

to

file

an

amended

complaint

containing appropriate jurisdictional allegations by May 31,
2018.

Failure to do so will result in the entry of an Order

dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 23rd
day of May, 2018.

5