Ulrich v. Progressive Express Insurance Company
| Charles Ulrich |
| Progressive Express Insurance Company |
| 8:2022cv02541 |
| November 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Virginia M Hernandez Covington |
| Amanda Arnold Sansone |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Remark: Transmittal of Record to State Court received and returned signed on 12/5/2022. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope) (CTR) |
| Filing 6 Remark: Transmittal of Record to State Court Received and Returned Unsigned. Returning for signature. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope) (CTR) |
Filing 5
ORDER: The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to state court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. After remand, the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/30/2022. (DMD)
|
| Filing 4 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 2 Order directing compliance filed by Progressive Express Insurance Company. (Worden, Jennifer) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Claire Worden on behalf of Progressive Express Insurance Company (Worden, Jennifer) |
|
Filing 2
ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant removed this case from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, and when "damages are unspecified, the removing party bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence." Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1208 (11th Cir. 2007). The Court is not convinced that the amount in controversy requirement has been met here. To establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, Defendant relies on the underinsured motorist policy's limits and a pre-suit demand letter and civil remedy notice seeking those limits. The $100,000 policy limit does not establish the amount in controversy and the complaint does not state that Plaintiff is seeking the policy limits. "In determining the amount in controversy in the insurance context,... it is the value of the claim, not the value of the underlying policy, that determines the amount in controversy." Martins v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., No. 08-60004-CIV, 2008 WL 783762, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2008) (quotation omitted); see also Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Island Crowne Developers, L.C., No. 6:10-cv-221-JA-DAB, 2010 WL 11626694, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2010) ("[A] showing that the policy amount exceeds $75,000 does not in and of itself establish that the amount in controversy requirement has been met because the value of the underlying claim may be for less than the policy limits[.]"). And demand letters do not automatically establish the amount in controversy. Lamb v. State Farm Fire Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:10-cv-615-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 6790539, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2010)(stating that demand letters and settlement offers "do not automatically establish the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction"). Rather, courts evaluate whether demand letters "reflect puffing and posturing" or "whether they provide 'specific information to support the plaintiff's claim for damages.'" Lamb, 2010 WL 6790539, at *2 (quoting Jackson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1281 (S.D. Ala. 2009)); see also Jeffers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:09-CV-1097-MMH-JBT, 2010 WL 11623391, at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2010) ("[W]hatever impact the Civil Remedy Notice, as a precursor to a bad-faith-failure-to-settle claim, may have on future litigation, it says nothing, in that capacity at least, as to the amount in controversy, at the time of removal, of the present action."). Here, the only concrete damages are past medical expenses of less than $23,000 -- far below the $75,000 threshold. Yet, the demand letter and civil remedy notice calculate many times that amount in past pain and suffering and approximately $1.4 million in future pain and suffering damages for the remainder of Plaintiff's life. It appears to the Court that the demand letter and civil remedy notice reflect puffing and posturing and the Court does not credit that demand for the policy limits or the non-economic damages calculations as establishing the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. In short, the Court believes the actual amount in controversy falls short of $75,000. Accordingly, Defendant is directed to provide additional information establishing, if possible, that the amount in controversy requirement has been met by November 22, 2022. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/16/2022. (DMD)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT and NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, case number 22-004773-CI filed in State Court on 11/07/2022. Filing fee $402, receipt number TPA67527 filed by Progressive Express Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 State Court COMPLAINT, #2 State Court Other Documents, #3 State Court Other Documents, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(AG) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Ulrich v. Progressive Express Insurance Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Charles Ulrich | |
| Represented By: | Erin Hayden |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Progressive Express Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Jeremy Michael Walker |
| Represented By: | Jennifer Claire Worden |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
