Seaway Painting Company, Inc. v. The Burlington Insurance Group, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 7 Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SEAWAY PAINTING COMPANY, INC.,
a Michigan Corporation, a.k.a. SEAWAY
PAINTING L.L.C., a Michigan Limited
Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-CV-15496
Honorable Denise Page Hood

BURLINGTON INSURANCE GROUP,
INC., a.k.a. THE BURLINGTON
INSURANCE COMPANY, a North
Carolina Corporation,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Seaway Painting Company, Inc.’s Motion to
Remand Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), filed February 22, 2013. Plaintiff asks that the Court
remand this case back to the Wayne County Circuit Court because the amount in controversy
required for diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied. Defendants argue the face of the complaint
demonstrates that the amount in controversy is more than satisfied.1 For the reasons stated in more
detail below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand is DENIED.
Generally, a defendant may remove an action that was brought in state court to federal court
if the district court would otherwise have jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district court has
original diversity jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states that involve an

1

In their response, Defendants criticize Plaintiffs for using a “canned brief.” However, compare the
second paragraph of Defendants’ response to the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Everett v. Verizon
Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818, 822 (6th Cir. 2008), specifically Headnote 3, not cited by Defendants.

amount in controversy that “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs
. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The removing party bears the burden of demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Gafford v. General Elec.
Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir. 1993). The Court will determine whether the amount in controversy
is established from the allegations in the complaint and notice of removal. Thompson v. Donald Lee
Fritsch & Schneider Speciality, 966 F.Supp. 543, 545 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The removing party “must
set forth specific facts which form the basis of its belief that there is more than [$75,000] at issue
in the case.” Id. However, the removing party does not have “the daunting [task] of proving to a
legal certainty, that the plaintiff’s damages are not less than the amount-in-controversy
requirement.” Gafford, 997 F.2d at 159.
In an action seeking declaratory relief, “it is well established that the amount in controversy
is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Cleveland Hous. Renewal Project v.
Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 621 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple
Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)). Any doubts as to whether removal was appropriate
should be resolved in favor of remanding the case back to the state court. Crump v. WorldCom, Inc.,
128 F. Supp. 2d 549, 552 (W.D. Tenn. 2001).
In its complaint for declaratory relief, Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $25,000 for
Defendants’ failure to defend and indemnify Plaintiff in a pending wrongful death action, in which
a young man fell to his death while working under the Ambassador Bridge. In the wrongful death
action, the young man was 25 years old and was survived by at least one child and parents. In this
action, Plaintiff alleges that at least one company has filed a cross-claim against it for
indemnification in the wrongful death action. Plaintiff further alleges that it anticipates that another

2

company will file a cross-claim against it for indemnification. Plaintiff asks the Court to require
that Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for all costs, expenses, and fees associated with defense of the
wrongful death action, assume Plaintiff’s defense in the wrongful death action, and indemnify
Plaintiff. In the Court’s view, the cost of defense of three actions alone is sufficient to satisfy the
amount in controversy requirement.
Defendants provide jury verdicts for several similar wrongful death actions; all of which
ended in a settlement or verdict in excess of $75,000. Plaintiff does not dispute this information.
The cost of indemnification alone for three separate suits also appears to be sufficient to satisfy the
amount in controversy requirement. It would go without saying that the cost of the defense and
indemnification of three separate actions would reasonably cost upwards of $75,000. Plaintiff also
seeks exemplary damages for Defendants’ alleged bad faith in refusing to defend the wrongful death
action. Considering the above, the Court finds that the amount in controversy requirement is more
than satisfied. Remand is not appropriate under these facts. The Court will not remand this matter
back to Wayne County Circuit Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to Wayne County Circuit Court under
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), filed February 22, 2013] is DENIED.

Dated: July 23, 2013

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July
23, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
3