Ulrich et al v. Zurich North America Insurance Company et al

Filing 39

ORDER Denying Request for Remand. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WADE C. ULRICH and ANITA SERRA,
Co-Conservators and Co-Guardians of
CARL ULRICH, a Protected Person,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:11-cv-15545
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE,
COMPANY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
On August 3, 2012, the Court issued an Order for Defendants to Show Cause
why this case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. # 33). The Court
heard oral argument on August 8, 2012. At the hearing, the parties cited law they
believed supported their positions.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for remand.
Lee-Lipstreu v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 329 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 2003), governs
here.
In Lee-Lipstreu, the Sixth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. §1332(c) could not be used
to bar a direct federal court action against one’s own insurance carrier. The Court
explained:
Applying the direct action provision to a dispute solely
between an insured and her own insurance company would
1

result in an absurdity -- federal courts would never hear
common insurance disputes because the insured and
insurer, the plaintiff and the defendant, would always be
considered citizens of the same state. We recognize that
the direct action provision applies in certain situations
involving injureds and insurers, but we conclude that it does
not apply here.
“Following Lee-Lipstreu, several different judges in the Eastern District of
Michigan have concluded that the Sixth Circuit has rejected the contention that
§1332(c)'s direct action provision applies to a dispute between an insured and his or her
own insurance company.” Waskowski v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 96237 ( E.D. Mich. July 11, 2012) (listing cases).
Given these holdings, Defendants need only satisfy the regular diversity
requirements under § 1332(a). Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan and no Defendant is a
citizen of Michigan. There is no dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over this action based on diversity of
jurisdiction.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for remand.
IT IS ORDERED.
/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: November 7, 2012
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
by electronic means or U.S. Mail on November 7,
2012.
S/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

2