Metcalfe et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 16

ORDER granting 4 motion to dismiss case.; denying 14 motion to appoint counsel. Case dismissed without prejudice. Signed on 6/1/15 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (View, Pat) Modified on 6/1/2015 (View, Pat). Copy of Order mailed to Plaintiffs Chris Metcalfe and Maureen Metcalfe.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRIS G. METCALFE and,
MAUREEN METCALFE

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY,
Defendant.

Case No. 6:15-cv-03096-MDH

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4). Plaintiffs
requested an extension of time to file a response to Defendant’s pending motion. The Court
granted Plaintiffs’ request for an extension. However, the extension of time granted to file a
response to Defendant’s pending Motion has expired and Plaintiffs did not file a response.
Therefore, the Motion is now ripe for review.
In addition, Plaintiffs have also filed a second Motion for a Court Appointed Attorney.
(Doc. No. 14). As the Court previously stated, a civil litigant has no constitutional or statutory
right to court appointed counsel. (See Doc. No. 8 – Order dated March, 17, 2015). Plaintiffs’
current motion states, Mr. Jason Coatney “which I have worked with, and has looked at the case,
has withdrawn…” However, Mr. Coatney has never entered an appearance in this matter. While
Plaintiffs suggest they have been unable to find a replacement “at this late hour,” the Plaintiffs
initiated this matter, pro se, on March 3, 2015. On March 17, 2015, the Court denied their
request for appointment of counsel and allowed Plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis. The
Court also granted Plaintiffs’ previous request for an extension of time to seek counsel. The
Court ordered Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by May 18, 2015. As
1 

stated above, Plaintiffs have failed to do so. Plaintiffs’ current Motion for a Court appointed
attorney does not provide any new or additional evidence or argument to justify the appointment
of legal counsel in this case. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Court Appointed Attorney (Doc.
No. 14) is DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss argues Plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed because this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.1 A review of Plaintiffs’ pro se
Complaint reflects a cause of action for the alleged failure of State Farm to pay a claim made by
the Plaintiffs under their State Farm insurance policy. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege a “loss [of]
$60,000 in tools insured by State Farm.” Plaintiffs further allege State Farm failed to pay their
claim and as a result seek $60,000 for their loss of tools, plus interest at 9% for 6 years
($32,400), constructive fraud, attempted fraud and punitive damages in the amount of
$1,000,000.00 for stress. Plaintiffs further allege State Farm did not act in good faith to settle
their claim.
Defendant argues federal jurisdiction is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the
amount in controversy does not meet the statutory requirement for federal jurisdiction.2 While
Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint does not address jurisdiction, Plaintiffs’ civil cover sheet indicates
the case was “removed from state court.” As noted above, the matter filed in the Circuit Court of
Greene County, Missouri was dismissed without prejudice. Further, this case was not filed under
the proper removal procedure.

Nonetheless, the Court reviews the pro se Complaint’s

allegations to determine if federal jurisdiction exists.

1

Defendant also argues that the case should be dismissed because a lawsuit is pending in Greene
County, Missouri alleging the same cause of action. However, Plaintiffs dismissed their state
court case, without prejudice, on March 12, 2015 (a week after Defendant filed its Motion to
Dismiss). Therefore, the Court finds this argument is now moot and will not address it in this
Order.
2
Defendant further notes the pro se Complaint does not involve a federal question.
2 

Here, the issue raised is whether subject matter jurisdiction exists based on diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal district courts shall have jurisdiction of all
civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Scottsdale
Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Protection Alliance, L.L.C., 620 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2010).
Defendant does not challenge diversity of citizenship in its pending motion, therefore, the
Court analyzes whether the amount in controversy requirement of § 1332 has been met. “If the
defendant challenges the plaintiff’s allegations of the amount in controversy, then the plaintiff
must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883,
884 (8th Cir. 2002).
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are less than $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, because their alleged loss under the insurance policy is $60,000. Defendant further argues
the “Metcalfe’s claim for punitive damages is improper and cannot serve as the basis for
satisfying the amount in controversy.” This Court agrees. As more fully explained below,
Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint does not properly plead a claim for punitive damages based on their
insurance claim and cannot serve as the basis for the jurisdictional amount. However, the Court
notes Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint does allege that State Farm did not act in good faith to settle
the claim.

This Court construes Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint in a light most favorable to

Plaintiffs in analyzing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
In Missouri, R.S.Mo 375.420, states:
in any action against any insurance company to recover the amount of any
loss under a policy … if it appears from the evidence that such company
has refused to pay such loss without reasonable cause or excuse, the court
or jury may, in addition to the amount thereof and interest, allow the
plaintiff damages not to exceed twenty percent of the first fifteen hundred

3 

dollars of the loss, and ten percent of the amount of the loss in excess of
the fifteen hundred dollars and a reasonable attorney’s fee…
RS.Mo. 375.420.
Here, Plaintiffs claim a loss of $60,000 under their insurance contract. Even if Plaintiffs
could submit a claim for vexatious refusal to pay, the damages allowed by Missouri statute
would be a maximum of $6,150, in addition to their $60,000 claim.3 Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claim
would total $66,150 under a “refusal to pay” claim which is below the $75,000 jurisdictional
amount. Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 states the sum or value must be $75,000 exclusive of interest.
As a result, Plaintiffs’ claims based on interest do not meet the jurisdictional requirement.
Plaintiffs have failed to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss also argues Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

Specifically, Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ claim constitutes a

breach of contract for the alleged coverage under the insurance policy. Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs are therefore limited to the policy benefit and any remedy is based on the law of
contract, and the enhancements provided by Missouri statute (as set forth above). Defendant
argues Plaintiffs’ claim for bad faith refusal or punitive or exemplary damages should therefore
be dismissed pursuant to Overcast v. Billings Mut. Ins. Co., 11 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Mo. banc. 2000).
The Eighth Circuit has stated, “In Missouri, recovery ‘by the insured against the
insurance company for the policy benefit ... is limited to that provided by the law of contract
plus, if section 375.420 applies, the enhancements provided by the statute.’ See Overcast v.
Billings Mut. Ins. Co., 11 S.W.3d 62, 68 (Mo. banc 2000). ‘[A]n insurance company's denial of
coverage itself is actionable only as a breach of contract and, where appropriate, a claim for

3

If Plaintiffs could succeed on this claim, they would be allowed to recover 20% of $1,500, or
$300 and 10% of the remaining $58,500 or $5,850 for a total of $6,150 additional dollars under
the statute.
4 

vexatious refusal to pay.’ Id. at 69.” Wood v. Foremost Ins. Co., 477 F.3d 1027, 1029 (8th Cir.
2007)
After a careful review of Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint, and the record before the Court,
the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs have failed to establish federal
jurisdiction as currently pled in their pro se Complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint, without prejudice, for
failure to plead a claim that falls under the federal jurisdiction of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2015

/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5