THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. CORONATION SHEET METAL CO. INC.

Filing 23

OPINION AND ORDER that Defendant's 16 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 5/30/13. (gmd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY OF AMERICA as subrogee of
Genova, Burns & Giantomasi

Civil Action No. 12-7603 (JLL)

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
V.

CORONATION SHEET METAL CO., INC.,
Defendant.
LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Coronation Sheet Metal
Co.,
Inc. (“Coronation” or “Defendant”)’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1).
The Court has considered the submissions made in support of and in opposition
to Defendant’s
motion and decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 78. For the
reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND

The Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Plaintiff’ or “Travelers”)
is an
insurance company that is incorporated and has its principal place of business
in Connecticut.
(See CMIECF No. 18.) At all relevant times, Plaintiff insured property (the “Prope
rty”) in
Newark, New Jersey belonging to the law firm of Genova, Bums & Gianto
masi (“Genova”),

Plaintiff’s subrogor. (See Compi.

¶ 2.)

1

Defendant is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Union, New
Jersey. (Compl.

¶ 4.)

Defendant is “in the business of supplying, installing, servicing, repairing,

testing, inspecting and programming heating ventilation and air conditioning (hereinafter
‘HVAC’) systems and their component parts including, but not limited to, Freeze Stats.” (Id.

¶

5.)
On February 20, 2011, Defendant serviced the Property’s HVAC system; thereafter,
pipes burst at the Property causing water damage. (Id.

¶J 13-14.)

payments to or on behalf of Genova in excess of $75,000. (Id.

Consequently, Plaintiff made

¶ 14.)

On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant as subrogee of
Genova. According to Plaintiff, the water damage to the Property resulted from Defendant’s
negligence in “failing to observe and exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill in the supply,
service, repair, inspection, testing, installation and/or programming of’ the Property’s HVAC
system. (Compl.
II.

¶J 16-21.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and thus may adjudicate cases and
controversies only as permitted under Article III of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. III,

§

2; see

also Philadelphia Federation of Teachers v. Ridge, 150 F.3d 319, 322-23 (3d Cir. 1998). “A
Rule 1 2(b)( 1) motion may be treated as either a facial or factual challenge to the court’s subject
matter jurisdiction.” Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).
“Facial attacks

.

.

.

contest the sufficiency of the pleadings, and the trial court must accept the

complaint’s allegations as true.” Taliaferro v. Darby Ti’vp. Zoning Rd., 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d
Cir.
2006). By contrast, on a factual attack to federal subject matter jurisdiction, courts may consider
evidence outside the pleadings. See Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 n.3
(3d Cir.
2

2006) (citing Mortensen v. First Fed. Say. & Loan Ass In, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977)).
Additionally, “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiffs allegations, and the existen
ce of
disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of
jurisdictional claims.” Id.
Federal courts must dismiss a complaint if a plaintiff cannot establish the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
III.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant did not file a brief in support of its
motion to dismiss. Local Civil Rule 7.1(d) requires submission of either a brief or a statement
that no brief is necessary and the reasons therefor. Defendant failed to file either. On this basis
alone, the Court could deny Defendant’s motion. In the interest of expediency, however, the
Court will decide Defendant’s motion on its merits.
In its complaint, Plaintiff invokes the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, as

the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. In relevant part, the diversity jurisdiction statute
provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.
states.” See 28 U.S.C.

§

.

.

and is between.

.

.

citizens of different

1332. A corporate entity is considered a citizen of its state of

incorporation and of the state of its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C.

§

I 332(c)(1).

In this case, there is no dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that
there is diversity of citizenship between Travelers and Coronation. Nevertheless, as
far as this

Court can ascertain, Defendant argues that there is no diversity of citizenship betwee
n the parties

3

because Plaintiff’s rights are no greater than those of Genova
Jersey. (See Def. Counsel Cert.

—

which does business in New

¶{ 6-8.) This argument lacks merit.

As Genova’s subrogee, Plaintiff is entitled to seek recovery in its own name without
adding any other party. See, e.g., Nat ‘1 Fire Ins. Co. v. Universal Janitorial Supply Corp., No.
05-5945, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17211, at

*

5-6 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2006) (“In the context of

insurance subrogation cases, insurers who become subrogees of the rights of the insureds
by the
payment of claims are real parties in interest who may, in accordance with Rule 17(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, prosecute actions to recover the amount of each claim in
their
own names.”) (citing United States v. Aetna Cas & Sur. Co., 338 U.S. 366, 380 (1949)
).
Although Genova is Plaintiffs subrogor, it is not itself a party to this litigation. Accordingly,
Genova’ s citizenship is irrelevant to determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. See
Universal Janitorial Supply Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17211, at *6 (holding that citizen
ship
of subrogor was irrelevant to determining whether diversity jurisdiction existed becaus subrog
e
or
was not a party to the litigation); see also Royal Ins. Co. v. United States, 998 F. Supp.
351, 353
(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“[1]t is the citizenship of the subrogee-insurer and not that of the insured
which
controls in analyzing whether parties are diverse.”) (citing Navarro Savings Ass ‘n v. Lee,
446
U.S. 458, 460-61 (1980) (diversity jurisdiction based on citizenship of real party in interes
t)).
Because the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000, and because there
is
complete diversity between the only litigants in this action—Travelers and Corona
tion, the Court
is satisfied that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. Accordingly,

for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS on this jY) dayofMay, 2013
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (CM/ECF No. 16) is DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JQSE L. LINARES
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

5