Clay v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The 9 Motion to Remand to State Court is GRANTED and the 8 Motion for Relief is DENIED as moot. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to Boyle Circuit Court and STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on November 2, 2011. (AWD) cc: COR,Boyle Circuit Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-240-JBC
ELEANOR CLAY,
V.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,
DEFENDANT.
**********
This matter is before the court on Eleanor Clay’s motion for relief (R. 7) and
motion to remand (R. 9). Because SafeCo Inurance Company has not shown that it
is more likely than not that Clay’s claims exceed the minimum jurisdictional
requirements, the court will remand the action to Boyle Circuit Court.
Because SafeCo’s notice of removal did not include facts sufficient for the
court to determine whether the amount in controversy actually exceeded $75,000,
this court ordered Clay to respond to SafeCo’s allegation of the amount in
controversy. In that order, the court offered Clay the opportunity to stipulate that
the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and that Clay would not
accept a greater amount even if awarded, in which case this court would sua
sponte remand, or to agree with the asserted amount in controversy. These
options were not exclusive, and they do not preclude Clay from arguing in her
motion to remand that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional
amount without stipulating that she will not accept a higher amount if awarded.
The court’s order was not intended to shift the burden of proof — SafeCo bears
the burden to show specific facts supporting its allegation that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. See Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 871 (6th Cir. 2000).
SafeCo has not shown that it is more likely than not that Clay’s claims
exceed $75,000. See Gafford v. General Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir.
1993). This action arises out of an insurance dispute over the replacement cost of
a destroyed oriental rug. Clay is attempting to recover the approximately $10,000
difference between the original rug dealer’s replacement estimate of $16,400 and
the amount paid by SafeCo under Clay’s insurance policy. She also seeks
unspecified amounts for violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, bad
faith, interest, and attorney’s fees. In asserting that these amounts, combined
with the actual damages, exceed the jurisdictional amount, SafeCo has not cited
specific facts from this case, nor has it engaged in discovery to determine the
nature of Clay’s bad faith or KCPA claims, see Wood v. Malin Trucking, Inc., 937
F.Supp. 614, 616 (E.D.Ky. 1995), but rather it relies on its attorney’s general
experience with cases involving damages for bad faith and a survey of cases in
which punitive damages were awarded. Because SafeCo has failed to show
specific facts demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, and because the removal statutes
are strictly construed and all doubts resolved in favor of remand, see Long v. Bando
Mfg. of America Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 757 (6th Cir.2000), this court does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over the case and remand is appropriate. This does not
preclude SafeCo from removing the case a second time if new developments, such
as discovery responses, reveal that the amount-in-controversy requirement is in
fact satisfied.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand (R. 9) is GRANTED and the
motion for relief (R. 7) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this
action is REMANDED to the Boyle Circuit Court and STRICKEN from the court’s
active docket.
Signed on November 2, 2011
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?