PRN ROOFING, INC.
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
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 failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold for removal.
Plaintiff sued for damages exceeding $30,000 after insurer failed to pay for repairs. Defendant removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction, but …
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 Burden Of Proof For Removal cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff PRN Roofing, Inc.’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 4), Defendant Federal Insurance Company (FIC)’s response (Doc. 11), and PRN’s reply (Doc. 17). FIC insured Thomas Falkie’s home when it was damaged by Hurricane Irma. Falkie notified FIC of his claim, hired PRN to make repairs, and assigned certain policy benefits to PRN. FIC failed to pay for the repairs, and PRN sued in state court, alleging damage in excess of $30,000. FIC removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. FIC established a jurisdictional amount in controversy by attaching PRN’s estimate for repairs totaling $104,767.55. PRN moved to remand because the insurance policy’s hurricane deductible is $69,600.00, making the demand reflected in PRN’s estimate $35,167.55. FIC did not offer any additional evidence of the amount in controversy.
Inc., 269 F. 3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). PRN successfully rebutted FIC’s only evidence of a jurisdictional amount in controversy. FIC argues remand should be contingent on PRN stipulating that damages will not exceed $75,000, something PRN refused to do. But “a refusal to stipulate standing alone does not satisfy [a defendant]’s burden of proof on the jurisdictional issue.” Id. at 1320. FIC failed to prove the jurisdictional amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, so remand is proper. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiff PRN Roofing, Inc.’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. (1) This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida. (3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 2nd day of June, 2020.
Lhe hlatrrthe 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Best BUY Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2008)