MCCRACKEN
v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO.: BW0162517
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.
The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the 30-day removal period began when the defendant received the plaintiff's settlement demand, not the initial complaint.
Plaintiffs sued their insurer in state court for breach of contract after Hurricane Irma damaged their property. The defendant insurer removed the cas…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1446(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
LLOYDS OF LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO.: BW0162517,
Defendant. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiffs William and Janis McCracken’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 5) and Defendant’s response (Doc. 8). This is an insurance dispute. In 2017, Hurricane Irma damaged property owned by Plaintiffs and insured by Defendants. Plaintiffs submitted a claim to Defendants, but Defendants have not paid for repairs. So on March 2, 2020, Plaintiffs sued Defendants in Florida state court for breach of the insurance contract. The Complaint does not plead the amount of Plaintiffs’ claim, except that it exceeds the state court’s jurisdictional amount of $30,000. On May 25, 2020, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a $240,000 settlement demand. Defendants removed the case to this Court on June 4, 2020, asserting diversity
receiving “a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). While Plaintiffs acknowledge Defendants may use the settlement demand to remove the case, they argue the removal clock started running when Defendants received the complaint because Defendants were already on notice the claim exceeded $75,000. Plaintiffs reason that since the insurance policy’s deductible is $102,000, they must be seeking at least that amount. But they are wrong for two reasons. First, the deductible does not count towards the jurisdictional amount because it is not “in controversy.” See
Alexion v. Fed. Ins. Co., 6:18-cv-2112-Orl-22GJK, 2019 WL 5294937, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2019) (gathering cases in which courts calculated the amount in controversy by subtracting a deductible from a repair estimate). Second, pre-litigation knowledge does not trigger the 30-day removal period. McManus v. Nat. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 380 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1262-63 (M.D. Fla. 2019). While an “other paper” can trigger the § 1446(b)(3) deadline, the defendant must receive the “other paper” after it receives the complaint. Id. at 1263. The 30-day removal period began here when Defendants received Plaintiffs’ $240,000 settlement offer. Defendants removed the case ten days later. Thus, removal was timely. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiffs William and Janis McCracken’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 5) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 23rd day of June, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record