Dady v. Liberty Insurance Corporation
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: The Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. This action is REMANDED to Boyle Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on February 8, 2016. (AWD) cc: COR,Boyle Circuit Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
GERARD DADY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Civil Case No. 16-cv-17-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
***
Defendant has filed its Response [DE 7] to this Court’s
January 20, 2016, Order [DE 6] to show cause why this matter
should not be remanded to Boyle Circuit Court because there is
no
competent
proof
showing
that
the
amount-in-controversy
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is satisfied such that this
Court
would
have
had
original
between diverse parties.
jurisdiction
over
this
matter
Having considered the Response, the
Court concludes that remand is appropriate in the absence of a
preponderance
of
evidence
to
suggest
that
jurisdiction
is
appropriate.
Defendant insists, without citation to relevant case law,
that Plaintiff’s admission that his attorney’s fees alone “may”
exceed $75,000 is sufficient to meet the amount in controversy
requirement without more.
Defendant has not persuaded the Court
that
as
“may”
is
the
same
“more
likely
than
not”
for,
if
something “may” be, it is just as likely that it “may not” be.
Further,
while
Plaintiff
concedes
that
attorney’s
fees
by
themselves may exceed $75,000 if the attorney’s fees escalate,
the same could be true of almost any case – given enough hours
invested
and
enough
fees
accrued.
Since
Plaintiff
has
not
stated that it is more likely than not that fees will escalate
to that point in this case, it is equally possible such an
escalation may not occur.
Thus, there is no evidence of record from which the Court
can conclude that damages are more likely than not to exceed
$75,000.
with
no
The lack of evidence in the record leaves the Court
basis
jurisdiction
is
on
which
proper.1
to
See,
determinate
e.g.,
that
Heartland-Mt.
diversity
Airy
of
Cincinnati Oh, LLC v. Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-86, 2015 WL 667682,
1
Defendant suggests for the first time that the amount in controversy
is met because Plaintiff can seek up to the policy limit, $267,500, and may
seek damages for emotional distress.
There is no evidence in the record,
however, to suggest that Plaintiff seeks anywhere close to that amount.
Defendant’s own estimate of the amount of damage to Plaintiff’s home was
$5,803.16, less $1,365.80 in depreciation and a $1,337.50 deductible.
[See
DE 7-2.] Certainly, Plaintiff must believe that the damage is greater than
what Defendant assessed or he would not have sued Defendant, but there is no
evidence to suggest that the amount is in excess of $75,000 or would push the
total sought anywhere close that amount.
Further, Defendant suggests that the amount in controversy is met
because an extraordinary amount of punitive damages may be awarded, pointing
to high jury awards for punitive damages in cases tried over the last
seventeen years in Kentucky, in which punitive damages were awarded in ratios
ranging from 1:1 to 1:10 based on compensatory damages awarded. [See DE 73.]
Defendant makes no effort to explain how these bad faith cases are
analogous to the one at hand, nor with the Court speculate in the absence of
any suggestion of the amount of potential compensatory damages in this
matter.
2
at
*5
(S.D.
Ohio
Feb.
17,
2015)
(citing
Everett
v.
Verizon
Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818, 829 (6th Cir. 2006)).
The Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly,
the action is REMANDED to Boyle Circuit Court.
This the 8th day of February, 2016.
3
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?