STUCCHIO et al v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NORMA L. SHAPIRO ON 4/4/12. 4/5/12 ENTERED AND E-MAILED. COPY MAILED TO CCP PHILA.(fdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY STUCCHIO and
VICTORIA STUCCHIO
v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Norma L. Shapiro, J.
CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-7068
No. 12-20
April 4, 2012
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs Anthony Stucchio and Victoria Stucchio (“Stucchios”) bring two actions
against defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) for breach of contract. In both actions,
C.A. 11-7068 (“Stucchio I”) and C.A. 12-20 (“Stucchio II”), the Stucchios allege Allstate failed
to pay benefits under the Stucchio homeowners insurance policy.
The Stucchios originally brought both actions in the Philadelphia County Court of
Common Pleas; Stucchio I was filed on October 17, 2011, and Stucchio II was filed four days
later. Allstate timely removed both actions to this court. The Stucchios move to remand Stucchio
II to the Court of Common Pleas. See Stucchio II, paper no. 4. Allstate moves to consolidate
Stucchio I & II. See Stucchio I, paper no. 6. The court will grant the motion to remand Stucchio
II, deny the motion to consolidate Stucchio I & II, and stay proceedings in Stucchio I pending
resolution of Stucchio II in the Court of Common Pleas.
I. Background
A. Stucchio I
The Stucchios reside at 24 Skyline Drive, Chalfont, Pennsylvania. Allstate, an Illinois
corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, insured the Stucchio home.
1
On February 25, 2011, while the Stucchio insurance policy was in effect, a storm
damaged the exterior of the Stucchio home and caused water to flow into the interior. The
Stucchios estimated it would cost $81,950 to repair damage to the roof, chimney, exterior walls,
porch, kitchen, living room, garage, and basement. The Stucchios demanded benefits under the
insurance policy, and Allstate refused to pay.
The Stucchios sued Allstate in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas for “an
amount in excess of $50,000.00” and attached the $81,950 estimate to their complaint. Allstate,
citing diversity and an amount-in-controversy over $75,000, timely removed the action to federal
court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Stucchio I, paper no. 1.
B. Stucchio II
On or about March 10, 2011, while the Stucchio insurance policy was in effect, a
plumbing leak caused additional damage to the Stucchio kitchen. The Stucchios estimated it
would cost $27,457 to repair this damage.
The Stucchios brought a second action against Allstate in the Court of Common Pleas,
limited damages to less than $50,000,1 and attached the $27,457 estimate to the complaint.
Allstate directed the following requests for admissions to the Stucchios:
1.
The total actual damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, or any
other damages set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, being sought in this suit do
not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), exclusive of costs and interest.
2.
The total actual damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, or any
other damages set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, being sought in this suit do
1
The action was designated for compulsory arbitration in the Court of Common Pleas.
See Mot. Remand ¶ 4; see also Pa. R. Civ. P. 1021(c) (requiring plaintiff to state whether “the
amount claimed does or does not exceed the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral”);
42 Pa. C.S. § 7361 (requiring arbitration referral unless amount-in-controversy exceeds $50,000).
2
not exceed Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), exclusive of costs and
interest.
3.
The total actual damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, or any
other damages set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, being sought in this suit do
not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), exclusive of
costs and interest.
4.
Plaintiffs are not making a claim for loss of use in this suit.
5.
Plaintiffs are not making a claim for additional living expenses in this suit.
6.
Plaintiffs are not making a claim for personal property damage in this suit.
Stucchio II, paper no. 1, ex. B. The Stucchios responded: “1-6, inclusive. Denied as the
Complaint, being in writing, speaks for itself.” Stucchio II, paper no. 1, ex. C.
II. The Stucchio motion to remand Stucchio II
The Stucchios argue Stucchio II should be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount-in-controversy is less than $75,000 (the
jurisdictional minimum for federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332) as the claim is
explicitly limited to less than $50,000. They also argue Allstate cannot prove to a “legal
certainty” the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000.
Allstate argues Stucchio II should not be remanded because: (1) the Stucchios denied that
their damages do not exceed $50,000, $75,000, or $150,000; (2) the Stucchios denied they were
not making claims for loss of use, additional living expenses, or personal property damage; (3)
the Stucchio arbitration recovery may be limited to $50,000 under 42 Pa. C.S. § 7361, but “there
is nothing to preclude Plaintiffs from amending their Complaint for higher damages either before
Arbitration or after Arbitration if an appeal is filed”; and (4) Stucchio I & II are “inextricably
3
intertwined” because both actions involve the same parties and insurance policy, and the claims
for damages overlap and may be duplicative. Stucchio II, paper no. 6 ¶ 4.
28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides: “The district courts shall have original 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 . . . .” The Stucchios reside in
Pennsylvania, and Allstate is an Illinois corporation; the parties do not dispute they are citizens of
different states under § 1332.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides: “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Removal statutes
(including § 1447) “are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved
in favor of remand.” Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d
Cir. 1987). If a party files a motion for remand, the removing party must prove removal is proper.
See Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990).
“In considering whether the amount in controversy of a particular dispute exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum, a court should begin its assessment of the amount in controversy by
looking to the complaint.” Bailey v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., No. 06-240, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 16941, at *12, 2007 WL 764286, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2007). Where a plaintiff
expressly limits her claim below the jurisdictional minimum in the complaint, “a defendant
seeking removal must prove to a legal certainty that plaintiff can recover the jurisdictional
amount.” Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 197 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Morgan v. Gay,
471 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2006)). A plaintiff is “master of her own claim” and thus “may limit [her]
4
claims to avoid federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Morgan v. Gay, 471 F.3d 469, 474 (3d Cir.
2006).
In Stucchio II, the Stucchios expressly limited their claim to $50,000—below the
jurisdictional minimum for federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For Stucchio II
to remain in federal court, Allstate must prove to a legal certainty the Stucchio claims can exceed
$75,000. See Morgan v. Gay, 471 F.3d 469, 474 (3d Cir. 2006). Although the Stucchios denied
their damages do not exceed $50,000, $75,000, or $150,000 because the complaint “speaks for
itself”—a non-responsive answer to a request for admission—nothing in the complaint or the
Allstate response proves to a legal certainty the Stucchio claims can exceed $75,000. Even if the
Stucchio answer to the Allstate request for admissions casts doubt on the amount claimed in the
complaint, “all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.” See Steel Valley Auth. v. Union
Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987).
Allstate argues federal jurisdiction is appropriate because the Stucchios could later amend
their complaint to seek greater damages. See Stucchio II, paper no. 6 ¶ 4. If defendants could
remove actions to federal court because plaintiffs could amend for higher damages, a plaintiff
would no longer be “master of her own claim” and could not “limit [her] claims to avoid federal
subject matter jurisdiction.” See Morgan v. Gay, 471 F.3d 469, 474 (3d Cir. 2006).
Allstate also argues Stucchio II is intertwined with Stucchio I, properly in this court. See
Stucchio II, paper no. 6 ¶ 4. Allstate seems to argue for the court to exercise supplemental
5
jurisdiction over Stucchio II; i.e., it would be judicially efficient to exercise jurisdiction over
Stucchio II because it shares common issues with Stucchio I.2
The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), provides, in relevant part:
in any civil action of which the district courts have original
jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction
over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within
such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
The statute allows a district court to exercise jurisdiction over state court claims related to a
federal court action but not separate state court actions otherwise unremovable. See In re Estate
of Tabas, 879 F. Supp. 464, 467 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Because § 1367(a) “is not . . . an independent
source of removal jurisdiction[,] . . . [a]n already-existing federal action cannot provide the
mechanism for removal of a non-removable state-court action.” Id.
These actions should be tried together. Both actions involve insurance claims for damage
to the same area. There will be an issue in each whether the damage was caused by the same
incident or two different incidents. The actions were filed four days apart, and it is not apparent
why they could not have been joined originally. Because one action has now been removed to
federal court and the other remanded to state court, they cannot be tried together. The only
alternative is to try one and then the other to avoid duplicative damages and the possibility of
inconsistent verdicts.
The court will allow the action in the Court of Common Pleas to be disposed of first by
trial or settlement; this court will then dispose of the remaining action. Although this results in
2
At oral argument, the court stated plaintiff could move for leave to amend the Stucchio I
complaint to include the Stucchio II claim so the court could exercise supplementary jurisdiction.
Plaintiff did not do so.
6
the later filed action being tried first, it also allows plaintiffs their first choice of Common Pleas
Court venue.
The Stucchio motion to remand will be granted; Stucchio II will be remanded to the Court
of Common Pleas, and Stucchio I will remain in federal court. Because Stucchio I & II share
common issues, to avoid duplicative damages and/or inconsistent verdicts the court will stay
proceedings in Stucchio I pending resolution of Stucchio II in the Court of Common Pleas.
III. The Allstate motion to consolidate Stucchio I & II
Because this court has no jurisdiction over Stucchio II, the Allstate motion to consolidate
will be denied.
IV. Conclusion
The court will grant the motion to remand Stucchio II, deny the motion to consolidate
Stucchio I & II, and stay proceedings in Stucchio I pending resolution of Stucchio II in the Court
of Common Pleas. An appropriate order follows.
7
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?