GREISL v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 19

ENTRY ON MOTION FOR REMAND - Ms. Greisl's Motion for Remand (Dkt. 10 ) is DENIED. This Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/16/2013. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LEEANN GREISL,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-01006-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON MOTION FOR REMAND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Leeann Greisl’s (“Ms. Greisl”) Motion for
Remand (Dkt. 10). Ms. Greisl originally filed her action in the Marion Superior Court, and the
action was removed to federal court by Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company (“State Farm”) on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Ms. Greisl has since amended
her complaint and certifies that the amount in controversy does not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Greisl’s Motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Ms. Greisl was involved in an automobile accident with another vehicle on June 1, 2011.
The driver of the other vehicle had an Alfa Insurance insurance policy with a $25,000.00 limit.
Ms. Greisl was insured by State Farm, including underinsured motorist coverage with a limit of
$100,000.00. The State Farm policy also included medical coverage up to $25,000.00. Ms.
Greisl suffered injuries in the accident, requiring surgery, numerous appointments, and future
medical care. Ms. Greisl also alleges she was required to turn down a job due to her injury.
Ms. Greisl settled her insurance claim with Alfa Insurance for the policy limit of
$25,000.00, which failed to fully compensate her for her injuries. On May 24, 2013, Ms. Greisl

filed a complaint in the Marion Superior Court wherein she alleges that State Farm has refused to
fully compensate her under her underinsured motorist coverage. In her complaint, Ms. Greisl
claims she suffered injuries which are permanent and which continue to result in limitation of
motion and extreme physical pain and suffering, that she has incurred and will incur in the future
reasonable medical expenses for treatment of her injuries and has suffered a permanent
impairment of her future earning capacity. Ms. Greisl further alleges that State Farm breached
its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to honor the medical payments and
underinsured motorist coverage.
State Farm removed this action on June 24, 2013. In its Notice of Removal, State Farm
alleged that in light of Ms. Greisl’s claims and outstanding policy limits, there is a reasonable
probability that the amount in controversy between Ms. Greisl and State Farm exceeds
$75,000.00. On July 12, 2013, Ms. Greisl amended her complaint in federal court alleging that
State Farm is obligated to pay her $75,000.00, but no more, under her policy’s underinsured
motorist coverage.
II. DISCUSSION
The starting point for determining the amount in controversy is the face of the complaint.
In the case of removal to federal court, the amount in controversy is the “amount required to
satisfy the plaintiff’s demands in full . . . on the day the suit was removed.” Oshana v. CocaCola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 510–11 (7th Cir. 2006). The party removing the action bears the burden
of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is met. Id. at 511.
When a state court complaint provides little information about the value of claims, “a good-faith
estimate of the stakes is acceptable if it is plausible and supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.” Id. A plaintiff can defeat jurisdiction after such a showing only “if it appears to a

2

legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Id. (internal
quotation omitted). However, it is well-settled that “a post-removal amendment to the complaint
limiting the plaintiff's claim does not authorize a remand.” Matter of Shell Oil Co., 970 F.2d
355, 356 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283
(1938).
Here, State Farm’s Notice of Removal includes a detailed estimated calculation of the
damages based on Ms. Greisl’s state court complaint. Specifically, State Farm notes that: (1)
the complaint alleged that Ms. Greisl suffered permanent physical injuries, extreme pain and
suffering, has incurred medical expenses, will incur future medical expenses, has lost income
from employment, and has suffered a permanent impairment of her future earning capacity; (2)
the complaint alleged that the State Farm policy had an underinsured motorist coverage limit of
$100,000.00 and medical payments coverage of $25,000.00; (3) that Ms. Greisl had settled her
claim with Alfa Insurance for $25,000.00; (4) that State Farm had paid medical expenses in the
amount of $21,152.17 to Ms. Greisl; (5) the complaint alleged breach of duty to deal in good
faith; and (6) that punitive damages are available in Indiana on claims for bad faith. Dkt. 1 at 2–
3. Based on this information, State Farm asserts that Ms. Greisl’s State Farm policy has a
remaining limit of $75,000.00 and remaining medical payments coverage of $3,847.83. This,
combined with potential compensatory and punitive damages for a bad faith claim, well exceeds
$75,000.00.
In her Motion to Remand, Ms. Greisl directs the Court’s attention to her amended
complaint, which only alleges the remaining policy limit of $75,000.00 and does not plead
breach of good faith. However, in making its determination, the Court may not consider the
allegations in the amended complaint, but must look to the moment the case was removed to

3

federal court.

Under this standard, State Farm has met their burden and shown by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds
$75,000.00. Therefore, Ms. Greisl’s Motion is DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Ms. Greisl’s Motion for Remand (Dkt. 10) is DENIED. This Court will
retain jurisdiction over this matter.

SO ORDERED.
12/16/2013
Date: _____________

DISTRIBUTION:

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Casey Ray Stafford
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]
John B. Drummy
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]
Bryan C. Tisch
YOSHA COOK SHARTZER & TISCH
[e-mail]

4