American National Property And Casualty Company v. Stefanic
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court's July 28, 2016 5 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on August 9, 2016.(AWD) cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY
AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID STEFANIC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Case No.
16-CV-275-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
***
Plaintiff has filed a Response to the Court’s Order to Show
Cause [DE 5, 9], as well as an Amended Complaint [DE 10] in
which
it
seeks
a
declaration
of
rights
under
a
policy
of
insurance issued to Defendant Stefanic that it does not owe
indemnification or a defense to Stefanic for claims asserted
against
him
in
a
Hernando
County,
Florida,
lawsuit
for
defamation, slander per se, and creating a false impression.
In
its
in
Amended
Complaint,
Plaintiff
claims
that
jurisdiction
this Court is properly founded on the diversity of citizenship
of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and because the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
In an action seeking a declaratory judgment, the amount in
controversy is the value to the petitioner of the rights he
seeks to protect. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of
Am., 565 F. Supp. 2d 779, 783 (E.D. Ky. 2008) (citing Williamson
1
v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 376 (6th Cir. 2007)). A
right is valued by measuring the losses that a party will incur
if the right is not protected.
Id. (citing Hunt v. Wash. State
Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)).
To determine
the value of the controversy, the Court relies on the amount
alleged in the complaint. Id. (citing Klepper v. First Am. Bank,
916 F.2d 337, 340 (6th Cir. 1990)).
In this action, Plaintiffs
aver
an
the
potential
for
losses
in
amount
Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).”
Page ID#: 184.]
which
“exceeds
[DE 10 at 2, ¶ 5;
At this juncture, this is enough to satisfy the
Court that jurisdiction is appropriate.
Defendant, once served,
may yet assert that the amount in controversy is asserted in bad
faith and that this matter should be dismissed,” Schultz v. Gen.
R.V. Ctr., 512 F.3d 754, 756 (6th Cir. 2008), or he may not.1
In
any event, that is an inquiry left for another day.
1
In the Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause,
Plaintiff explains that there is a well-documented history of
large jury verdicts which well-exceed the $75,000.00 threshhold
for the amount in controversy in Florida cases involving claims
similar to those alleged against Defendant Stefanic in Hernando
County.
Plaintiff cites to a host of handsome verdicts which
range from $166,381 to $5,000,000 but provides no details about
the case against Defendant Stefanic which would support such an
award if the Florida plaintiffs are successful including, for
example, measurable losses which might serve as the touchstone
for evaluating past and future loss of earnings, damage to
reputation, and punitive damages.
Nor has Plaintiff projected
the value of staging a defense of those claims on its insured’s
behalf.
This is neither here nor there with respect to the
Court’s inquiry today.
Should Defendant later challenge the
bona fides of the amount in controversy, however, Plaintiff
2
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s July 28, 2016,
Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED.
This the 9th day of August, 2016.
should be aware that something other than jury verdicts obtained
in other cases with different facts and demands will be
necessary to support a claim of diversity jurisdiction in this
Court.
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?