MIRRAS
v.
TIME INSURANCE
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 attorney's fees awarded by statute are included in the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
Plaintiff sued an insurer for breach of contract, seeking damages and statutory attorney's fees. The insurer removed the case based on diversity juris…
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 Fla. Stat. § 627.428 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
JAMES S. MOODY, JR., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 13), and Time Insurance Company’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 18). The Court, having considered the motion, response, memoranda, notice of removal, complaint, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that Plaintiffs motion should be denied.
Plaintiff Brian Mirras initially filed suit against Defendant Time Insurance Company (“Time”) in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida, asserting breach of contract under a health insurance policy as well as entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.428. On July 10, 2008, Time filed a Notice of Removal (Dkt. # 1) along with supporting affidavits (Diets. #4 through 7) on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 1 On July 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed this motion arguing that the case should be remanded because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.
It is undisputed that the Plaintiff seeks damages for treatment and care in the amount of $49,413.72. Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.428. Defendant has offered affidavits supporting the assertion that attorney’s fees would reach at least $28,000 during the litigation of this matter (assuming Plaintiffs counsel spends at least 40 hours at $350/hour in the pleading, discovery, review of documents, and motion practice). 2 Plaintiff does not contest this assumption nor has Plaintiff offered affidavits in opposition. Rather, Plaintiff argues that attorney’s fees should not be considered when determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. The Court disagrees.
Under Florida law, the award of attorney’s fees in an insured’s action against an insurer, upon rendition of judgment, is statutory. See Fla. Stat. § 627.428(1) (2007) (providing that fees *1353 shall be awarded if there is a judgment “against an insurer and in favor of any named beneficiary under a policy or contract executed by the insurer”). “When a statute authorizes the recovery of attorney’s fees, a reasonable amount of those fees is included in the amount in controversy.” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F. 3d 1255, 1265 (11th Cir.2000); see also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla.1993) (finding that the terms of section 627.428 are an implicit part of every insurance policy).
The Court concludes that Time has established by a preponderance of the evidence that reasonable attorney’s fees in this case will reach at least $28,000. Accordingly, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 ($49,413.72 + $28,000 = $77,413.72). Thus, the required jurisdictional amount under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is satisfied.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 13) is DENIED.
1
. It is undisputed that the parties are completely diverse.
2
. Dkt. # 4, Affidavit of John Richardson.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mohamed v. GeoVera Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2022)…. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., No. 8:21-cv-112, 2021 WL 141492, *1–2 (M.D. Fla. 2021) for support.4 5 Defendant counters that the calculation includes anticipated attorney’s fees over the course of litigation by citing to Mirras v. Time Ins. Co., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1353 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (anticipated statutory attorney’s fees were included in calculating amount in controversy). This Court finds that where the plaintiff does not explicitly identify the value of attorney’s fees, the court may look to evidence…
-
Unwin v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (M.D. Fla. 2021)…the Circuit split). And while some courts have considered projected fees, many courts have held that only attorneys’ fees accrued up to the time of removal can be included in calculating the amount-in-controversy. Compare Mirras v. Time Ins. Co., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1352–53 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (including anticipated statutory attorneys’ fees of over $28,000 in finding the amount-in-controversy requirement to be satisfied), and DO Rests., Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 984 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1345–47 (S.D. Fla. 2…
-
Thomas v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. (M.D. Fla. 2021)…whether the case stated in a complaint meets federal jurisdictional requirements.” Id. at 1062. In cases like these dealing with breach of insurance contracts, attorney’s fees regularly equal more than $20,000. See Mirras v. Time Ins. Co., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1353 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (Moody, J.) (finding that attorney’s fees would reach at least $28,000 in a breach-of-insurance-contract case); Harvest Moon Distrib., LLC v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., 6:20-CV-1026-Orl-40DCI, 2020 WL 6382625, at *2-3 (M.D. Fl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993)
- Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000)