The Village at Deer Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. et al v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company et al
Filing
26
ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Doc. # 4] is GRANTED. MCC's Motion to Sever and Transfer, or, in the Alternative, to Stay [Doc. # 7] is DENIED as moot.(Kanies, Renea)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
THE VILLAGE AT DEER CREEK
)
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et )
)
al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
Case No. 4:11-cv-339-NKL
ORDER
On April 1, 2011, Defendants State Automobile Insurance Company (“State Auto”)
and Mid-Continent Casualty Company (“MCC”) filed a timely notice to remove this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446. [Doc. # 1]. Pending before the Court is
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand claiming that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
because there is not complete diversity. [Doc. # 4]. Also pending before the Court is MCC’s
Motion to Sever and to Transfer Venue or, in the Alternative to Stay [Doc. # 7]. For the
following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and denies MCC’s motion.
I.
Background
The following facts and procedural background are taken from Plaintiffs’ Complaint
[Doc. # 1-1], which was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Plaintiff’s Motion to
1
Remand [Doc. # 4], and Defendants’ Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand [Doc. # 9], and are assumed true for purposes of this motion to remand.
Plaintiffs are the Village at Deer Creek Homeowner’s Association, Inc. (“the
association”), its individual homeowners, and Greater Midwest Builders, Inc. (“GMB”).
In 2007, the association and homeowner plaintiffs (collectively, “the VADC
plaintiffs”) sued GMB in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas for property
damage to their homes. At the time of the property damage, GMB had insurance policies
with both State Auto and MCC. Based on those policies, GMB demanded from State
Auto and MCC a legal defense and indemnification for any judgement entered in the
Kansas state lawsuit. In February 2009, MCC filed a declaratory judgment action against
GMB in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to determine whether it
had a duty to indemnify GMB. Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Greater Midwest
Builders, Ltd., No. 2:09-CV-2066 (D. Kan.) [Doc. # 8-3]. That action was stayed in
October 2009, pending the resolution of the Kansas state lawsuit.
On February 10, 2011, a verdict was entered against GMB in the underlying
lawsuit, awarding the VADC plaintiffs over $7 million. On February 16, 2011, the
VADC plaintiffs filed a petition for equitable garnishment against State Auto, MCC, and
GMB in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. State Auto removed the action to
this Court on March 4, 201, with the consent of MCC. On March 10, 2011, the VADC
plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in this Court, and on March 23, 2011, filed
a second garnishment action against State Auto and MCC in Jackson County Circuit
2
Court. In the second petition, GMB is a plaintiff instead of a defendant. GMB alleges
that State Auto and MCC improperly handled its insurance claims. State Auto filed a
timely notice of removal with MCC’s consent, and the second garnishment action was
removed to this Court on April 1, 2011.
Defendants argue that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and
1446 because the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity.
Defendants assert complete diversity exists because State Auto is incorporated in Ohio
with Ohio as its principal place of business, MCC is incorporated in Ohio with Oklahoma
as its principal place of business, and all of the Plaintiffs are residents of either Kansas or
Missouri. In its pending Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs argue that complete diversity does
not exist because their Complaint involves a direct action by the VADC plaintiffs against
State Auto and MCC pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 379.200. Therefore the Defendants
are deemed to be citizens of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1) destroying complete
diversity.
MCC has also moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to sever and to transfer venue
or, in the alternative, to stay. In its motion, MCC argues that transferring Plaintiffs’ claims
to the District of Kansas would better serve the interests of justice because MCC first filed
its declaratory judgment against GMB there, that action remains pending and it raises the
same insurance coverage issue presently before this Court. MCC also states that all of the
underlying events and the judgment sought to be enforced arose in Kansas. Therefore the
insurance coverage issue should be resolved in Kansas. Alternatively, MCC requests that
3
the Court stay this action until the federal court in Kansas rules on motions pending before
it.
II.
Discussion
Defendants, who seek removal and oppose remand, bear the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction. In re Business Men’s Assurance Co. of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th
Cir. 1993). A district court is required to resolve all doubts about federal jurisdiction in
favor of remand. See id. at 183; Transit Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of
London, 119 F.3d 619, 625 (8th Cir. 1997). Whether a civil action is removable and has
been properly removed is a question reserved for federal courts and is not controlled by
state law. Hayes v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., 276 F. Supp. 2d 985, 988 (W.D. Mo.
2003); Randolph v. Empl’rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis., 260 F.2d 461, 463-64 (8th Cir. 1958).
At issue is whether an equitable garnishment proceeding under Mo. Rev. Stat. §
379.200 constitutes a “direct action” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
provides in relevant part:
(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title-(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it
has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of
business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or
contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to
which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer
shall be deemed a citizen of the State of which the insured is a citizen, as
well as of any State by which the insurer has been incorporated and of the
State where it has its principal place of business.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added).
Section 379.200 of the Missouri Revised Statutes provides in pertinent part:
4
Upon the recovery of a final judgment against any person, firm or
corporation by any person . . . for loss or damage . . . to property if the
defendant in such action was insured against said loss or damage at the time
when the right of action arose, the judgment creditor shall be entitled to
have the insurance money, provided for in the contract of insurance
between the insurance company, person, firm or association . . . and the
defendant, applied to the satisfaction of the judgment, and if the judgment is
not satisfied within thirty days after the date when it is rendered, the
judgment creditor may proceed in equity against the defendant and the
insurance company to reach and apply the insurance money to the
satisfaction of the judgment.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 379.200.
Defendants argue that Congress intended that a direct action under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1) is one where an injured plaintiff proceeds against an insurance company
without first obtaining judgment against the insured. Because § 379.200 requires that an
injured plaintiff first recover a final judgment against the insured before proceeding in
equity against the insurer for satisfaction of the judgment, the pending case is not a
“direct action” within the meaning of § 1332(c)(1) and therefore diversity does exist.
In support, Defendants cite to Hayes v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., 276 F. Supp. 2d
985 (W.D. Mo. 2003). The court in Hayes found that a traditional garnishment
proceeding brought under chapter 525 of the Missouri Revised Statutes was not a direct
action within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Although the garnishment
proceeding in Hayes was not brought under § 379.200, Defendants argue that the Hayes
court intended to include § 379.200 actions in its holding because it stated: “Hayes is not
suing the insurer in order to establish Courtney’s liability to her; [Hayes] established
Courtney’s liability in a proceeding against Courtney. In this proceeding, Hayes does not
5
litigate any claim she has against Courtney, but only claims she has against his insurer,”
Id at 987. According to Defendants, this reasoning of the Hayes order applies equally to
any type of garnishment action in Missouri.
The Court finds that Hayes is inapplicable here because that court’s analysis was
confined to chapter 525 garnishment and is thus not on point for the specific issue of
equitable garnishment under § 379.200. See Johnston v. Sweany, 68 S.W.3d 398, 403
(Mo. 2002) (“There are two avenues for a judgment creditor to collect money from an
insurance company: (1) a traditional garnishment under section 525.240 and Rule 90 or
(2) a direct action against the insurer authorized by section 379.200.”); Lancaster v. Am.
and Foreign Ins. Co., 272 F.3d 1059, 1066 (8th Cir. 2001) (characterizing a § 379.200
action as a distinct remedy from a claim brought under Missouri’s traditional garnishment
provisions in chapter 525).
Federal courts in Missouri have consistently referred to § 379.200 suits as “direct
actions” under § 1332(c). See e.g., Kendall v. N. Assurance Co. of Am., No.
09-0539-CV-W-GAF, 2009 WL 2632757, at *2 (W.D. Mo. 2009) (finding that a
defendant was considered a Missouri resident for purposes of plaintiff’s § 379.200 claim
as the case was a “direct action” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)); Grissom
v. Welker, No. 1:10 CV 144 RWS, 2011 WL 845285, at *2 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (action
brought under section 379.000 is considered a “direct action,” whereas an ordinary
garnishment action under chapter 525 is not); Monroe v. Roedder, 583 F. Supp. 2d 1031,
1033 n.3 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (same); Dobbs v. Nat’l Cas. Co., No. 4:10CV1731RWS, 2011
6
WL 768400, at *2 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (An equitable garnishment action brought under §
379.200 is a “direct action” against an insurer for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).
In Prendergast v. Alliance Gen. Ins. Co., 921 F. Supp. 653, 655 (E.D. Mo. 1996),
the court found that § 379.200 is a “direct action” under § 1332(c) and reasoned that
policy considerations counseled in favor of its decision:
The defendant insurance company . . . is not being sued for any action it
took against the plaintiffs, but is simply being sued in an attempt to collect a
judgment that has already been entered against its insured, a Missouri
citizen. . . . Missouri’s equitable garnishment statute essentially does in two
steps what the Louisiana statute that lead [sic] to the change in § 1332(c)(1)
did in one step, and provides to the suing plaintiff the same remedy that a
direct action against the insurance company would have provided, were that
allowed under Missouri law. Therefore the Court holds that the insurance
company is deemed a citizen of the state of Missouri for purposes of this
suit. Because a citizen of Missouri is a defendant in this suit, the case is not
removable.
Prendergast, 921 F. Supp. at 655. This conclusion is also consistent with the plain
wording of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Further, all doubts about federal jurisdiction must be
resolved in favor of remand.
In light of the clear analysis and holdings from federal courts in Missouri which
have dealt specifically with Mo. Rev. Stat. § 379.200, the Court finds that an action
under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 379.200 is a “direct action,” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1). As such, Defendants are deemed Missouri citizens, rendering incomplete
diversity among the parties.
7
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Remand [Doc. # 4] is GRANTED. MCC’s Motion to Sever and Transfer, or, in the
Alternative, to Stay [Doc. # 7] is DENIED as moot.
s/ NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: July 8,2 011
Jefferson City, Missouri
8
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?