CROTTS
v.
SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2021-08-05
No. 8:21-cv-1547
District Court, M.D. Florida (2021)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under her insurance policy. The policy had limits of $250,000/$500,000. Plaintiff moved to…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Underinsured Motorist Coverage Uninsured Motorist Claim Amount In Controversy Preponderance Of The Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Underinsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff Kathleen Crotts moves to remand this action to state court. (Doc. 8). She argues that Southern Owners failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See (Doc. 8).1 Her arguments fail. Crotts claims uninsured, underinsured motorist benefits and alleges that she “performed all conditions precedent to entitle recovery under the [insurance policy with Southern Owners], but . . . Southern Owners denied that coverage exists and/or refused to pay [Crotts] the full value of the claim.” (Doc. 1-8 at ¶ 11). Attached to the complaint is a copy of Crotts’s insurance policy with Southern Owners which states that her bodily injury coverage limit is “$250,000 person/$500,000 occurrence.” (Id. at 5). These facts at least make it possible that Crotts seeks a minimum of $75,000. See Williams v. Best Buy

Fath Kewnlall Miryelle Kathryr Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge

Footnotes
1 The parties do not dispute that diversity exists between them. See (Doc. 8). The Court is also satisfied that diversity exists. See (Doc. 1 at 4). Co., Inc., 269 F. 3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). Southern Owners demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence though that, not only is it possible that the lawsuit exceeds the amount in controversy, it is exactly what Crotts is seeking. Southern Owners attaches a demand letter from Crotts for the full $250,000 policy limits (Doc. 1-5 at 1); a statement in that demand letter that her future pain and suffering will cost $1,827,920 Ud. at 4); and a civil remedy notice stating that Crotts’s damages “far exceed the underlying . . . underinsured motorist limits of $250,000.” (Doc. 1-6 at 5); see also Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F. 3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 1994) (“While [a] settlement offer, by itself, may not be determinative, it counts for something.”). As a result, Southern Owners established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Crotts’s motion for remand (Doc. 8) is DENIED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 5, 2021.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw