Hazzard et al v. Union Bankers Insurance Company

Filing 21

ORDER granting pltfs' 17 Motion to Remand to King County Superior Court by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6

8

DANIEL HAZZARD and WHITNEY
HAZZARD, husband and wife and the
marital community therein,

9

Plaintiffs,

7

10
11
12

v.

Case No. C13-1162RSL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE
COURT

UNION BANKERS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

13
14
15

I. INTRODUCTION

16

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand Case to State

17

Court” (Dkt. #17) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action

18

arising from defendant’s denial of a disability claim. See Notice of Removal (Dkt. #1) at 10-14.

19

Defendant removed the matter asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Id. at 3. Plaintiffs move to remand alleging the amount-in-controversy

21

requirement necessary for diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied. Motion (Dkt. #17) at 3.

22
23

The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand Case to State Court.”
II. DISCUSSION

24
25
26

A. Background
In October 2010 plaintiff Daniel Hazzard filed a disability insurance claim with
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND

1

defendant. Notice of Removal (Dkt. #1) at 9. When defendant denied the claim, plaintiffs filed

2

suit in King County Superior Court. Opposition (Dkt. #19) at 2. Defendant then removed to this

3

Court. Notice of Removal (Dkt. #1).

4

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

5

Removal is proper where the district court would have original jurisdiction over the state

6

court action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a) grants original

7

jurisdiction to a district court when there is both diversity of citizenship and an amount-in-

8

controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C § 1332(a). As there is complete diversity between the

9

parties,1 plaintiffs seek remand on the basis that the amount-in-controversy requirement is not

10
11

satisfied.
Defendant has asserted that plaintiffs are seeking at least $76,590 in damages. This

12

calculation includes the contract benefits ($10,400), treble damages under the Insurance Fair

13

Conduct Act (IFCA) ($31,200), damages under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA)

14

($25,000), and attorney’s fees ($9,990).2 Notice of Removal (Dkt. #1) at 3-4.

15

IFCA allows this Court to “increase the total award of damages to an amount not to

16

exceed three times the actual damages.” RCW 48.30.015(2). Defendant has calculated the treble

17

damages award in addition to the claimed benefits for a total of $41,600, or what would amount

18

to quadruple damages under IFCA. This is plainly not how the statute operates. See Burke

19

Family Living Trust v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. C09-5388 FDB, 2009 WL 2947196, at *3

20

(W.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2009) (calculating treble damages under IFCA by multiplying the

21

contract value by three). Plaintiffs may also be able to recover a maximum of $25,000 under the

22
23
24
25
26

1

Plaintiffs are citizens of Washington while defendant is a citizen of Florida. Notice of Removal
(Dkt. #1) at 3.
2

Attorney’s fees and treble damages may be included in the amount-in-controversy. See Galt G/S
v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998); Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.,
225 F.3d 1042, 1046 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000).
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND

-2-

1

CPA.3 As this Court’s maximum calculation of the amount-in-controversy is $66,190,4 defendant

2

has failed to meet the minimum threshold of 28 U.S.C § 1332(a).
III. CONCLUSION

3
4

For all the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state

5

court (Dkt. #17). The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to King County Superior

6

Court and to close this case.

7
8

DATED this 25th day of February, 2014.
9
10
11

A
Robert S. Lasnik

12

United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3

The CPA caps a treble damages award at $25,000. RCW 19.86.090. Plaintiffs may be able to
claim damages under both the IFCA and the CPA. See Burke, 2009 WL 2947196, at *3.
4

The Court reaches this figure by compiling the following damage calculations: $31,200 (IFCA),
$25,000 (CPA), and $9,990 (attorney’s fees).
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND

-3-