Winslow v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, Inc.

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs motion to remand (Doc. 8) is denied. An appropriate Order is filed simultaneously with this Memorandum.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 7/24/18. (cc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GREG WINSLOW,

:
:CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-1094
Plaintiff,
:
:(JUDGE CONABOY)
v.
:
:
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE
:
COMPANY, INC., d/b/a PROGRESSIVE
:
DRIVE INSRUANCE,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
___________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM
Here the Court considers the motion to remand filed by
Plaintiff on June 8, 2016.1

(Doc. 8.)

Plaintiff’s motion is based

on his assertion that removal was improper because the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000 and the face of the Complaint
illustrates that the amount in controversy is $14,500.
5-6; Doc. 13 at 8.)

(Doc. 8 at

In its Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion to Remand (Doc. 14) filed on June 29, 2018, Defendant
responds that the matter was properly removed because a reasonable
reading of the Complaint establishes the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000 when attorneys’ fees, interest, costs, and the

1

Because Plaintiff’s motion is contained in a document
titled “Answer, Objections and the Motion to Remand this Action to
State Court of the Plaintiffs” (Doc. 8), the motion does not
comport with the requirements of the Local Rules of Court of the
Middle District of Pennsylvania which specify that each motion is
to be filed as a separate document and must contain a certification
regarding concurrence.
L.R. 5.1(h), 7.1. Notwithstanding these
deficiencies, the Court considers the motion as filed and waives
the separate document rule and the need for concurrence
certification for this filing only.

amount of punitive damages are considered.

(Id. at 3-5.)

With his

reply brief filed on July 11, 2018, Plaintiff agrees that the
amount in controversy in this case is properly determined by a
reasonable reading of the complaint but asserts Defendant is
incorrect that the amount in controversy here exceeds $75,000 and
Defendant has not shown that punitive damages would lead to an
award exceeding $75,000. (Doc. 15 at 2, 6.)

Therefore, Plaintiff

avers that Batdoff v. State Farm Insurance Co., 977 F.3d 843 (3d
Cir. 1992), requires remand because “removal statutes ‘are to be
strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be
resolved in favor of remand.’”
977 F.2d 848).)

(Doc. 15 at 6-7 (quoting Batdoff,

For the reasons discussed below, the Court

concludes Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 8) is properly denied.
I. Discussion
In determining whether this Court should exercise removal
jurisdiction, we are guided by well-recognized general principles.
The defendant’s right to remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is to
be determined from the plaintiff’s pleading at the time of the
petition for removal.

Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537

(1939) (citations omitted).

The defendant bears the burden of

showing that federal jurisdiction is proper.

Id. at 540.

“[T]he

removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts should
be resolved in favor of remand.”

Abels v. State Farm Fire &

Casualty Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985).
2

28 U.S.C. § 1447

mandates remand where the District Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
Removal based on diversity grounds requires that 28 U.S.C. §
1332's diversity of citizenship requirement is met and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.
1332(a).

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 28 U.S.C. §

While the general federal rule is to decide the amount in

controversy from the complaint itself, when punitive damages are
sought, a court may include them in the amount in controversy
unless the demand is “patently frivolous and without foundation.”
Golden ex rel. Golden v. Golden, 382 F.3d 348, 355 (3d Cir. 2004).
“Punitive damage claims are per se patently frivolous and without
foundation if they are unavailable as a matter of state substantive
law.”

Id. (citations and internal quotation omitted).

In Golden,

the court explained that “[i]f appropriately made, . . . a request
for punitive damages will generally satisfy the amount in
controversy requirement because it cannot be stated to a legal
certainty that the value
statutory minimum.”

of the plaintiff’s claim is below the

Id.

Defendant states that “[d]istrict courts within the Third
Circuit have specifically held that where a plaintiff asserts a
claim for punitive damages for insurance bad faith, punitive
damages should in included when calculating the amount in
controversy.”

(Doc. 14 at 6 (citing Denicola v. Progressive Direct

Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1684640 (M.D. Pa. 2009); Webb v. Discover Prop. &

3

Cas. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5047800 (M.D. Pa. 2008)).)

As noted above,

Defendant maintains that the amount in controversy requirement is
met here because Plaintiff is seeking “compensatory damages
consisting of collision coverage benefits ‘in a sum in excess of
$14,500.00,’” punitive damages (which are available under
Pennsylvania law if Defendant has acted in bad faith), attorneys’
fees, interest, and costs.

(Doc. 14 at 8.)

Regarding estimation

of the amount in controversy, Defendant cites several district
court cases including two where jurisdiction was retained based on
asserted compensatory damages of $14,000-$15,000 as well as the
plaintiffs’ requests for attorney fees and punitive damages.

(Doc.

14 at 6-8 (citing Stehle-Rosellini v. Allstate Corp., 2010 WL
358519 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2010); Harvey v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 2008
WL 2805608, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 18, 2008)).)
Plaintiff does not refute authority supporting the inclusion
of punitive damages in the amount in controversy but rather
disputes that the amount of total damages in controversy here
exceeds $75,000.

(Doc. 13 at 8.)

Plaintiff does not provide

factual support for the assertion but points to Defendant’s motion
to dismiss Plaintiff’s bad faith claim as reason to grant the
motion to remand.

(Id.)

The Court concludes that because punitive damages are
available with Plaintiff’s bad faith claim and this motion to
remand must be decided before the Court exercises jurisdiction over

4

the case and Defendant’s motion to dismiss, punitive damages are
properly considered in determining whether the amount in
controversy requirement is met for removal purposes.

The Court

further concludes that relevant authority reviewed above supports a
determination that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds
the statutory minimum based on Plaintiff’s request for compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs
(see Doc. 1-1 at 8, 10, 11).
II. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand
(Doc. 8) is denied.

An appropriate Order is filed simultaneously

with this Memorandum.

S/Richard P. Conaboy
RICHARD P. CONABOY
United States District Judge
DATED: July 24, 2018

5