Brown v. Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-384-BAJ-RLB |
| Parties | JOE W. BROWN, JR. v. GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 29, 2015.
/s/_________
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (R. Doc. 4). The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 7). After careful review of the pleadings, arguments of the parties, and applicable law, it is the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand should be DENIED.
Joe W. Brown, Jr. ("Plaintiff" or "Mr. Brown") initiated this life insurance coverage dispute against Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company ("Defendant" or "Globe Life") on May 8, 2015 in the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. (R. Doc. 1-1, "Petition"). Plaintiff alleges that Globe Life is indebted to him "for life insurance benefits in the total amount of $53,500, in addition to other related damages and expenses, as a beneficiary resulting from the death of Mr. Brown's wife, Lisa Brown, together with penalties and attorneys' fees." (Petition, ¶ 4). Plaintiff alleges that the East Baton Rouge Parish coroner concluded that his wife's cause of death was "multi-drug toxicity" and by "accident." (Petition, ¶ 5). Globe Life denied payment on the basis of the relevant policy's non-coverage for death caused by: "(1) Disease, sickness, bodily or mental infirmity, or medical or surgical treatment of same;" and "(3)Being under the influence of any narcotic drug, narcotic, poison or gas unless taken on the advice of a physician." (Petition, ¶ 9).
Plaintiff alleges that the denial of coverage and adjustment of the claims was done "arbitrarily and capriciously" in violation of La. R.S. §§ 22:1973, 22:1892, and 22:1811, entitling him to recovery of bad faith damages, penalties, and attorney's fees. (Petition, ¶¶ 12-13).1
Plaintiff specifically alleges that Globe Life "misrepresented the pertinent policy language upon which it based its denials" in violation of La. R.S. § 22:1973(B)(1). (Petition, ¶14). Plaintiff, therefore, seeks "to recover penalties in an amount not to exceed two times the damages sustained as a result of the misrepresentation or $5,000, whichever is greater" pursuant to La. R.S. § 22:1973(C). (Petition, ¶ 14). Furthermore, Plaintiff specifically alleges that he is entitled to recover penalties pursuant to La. R.S. § 22:1811 because Globe Life failed to settle his death claim within sixty days of its receipt of the proof of death without just cause. (Petition, ¶ 15). Plaintiff also seeks recovery of attorney's fees and damages for "[e]xtreme mental anguish, including inconvenience and aggravation." (Petition, ¶ 19).2
On June 12, 2015, Globe Life removed this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Globe Life alleges that there is complete diversity as Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana and Globe Life is a citizen of Nebraska and Oklahoma. (R. Doc. 1 at 2). Globe Life further alleges that based on the allegations in the Petition, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. (R. Doc. 1 at 3).
On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand arguing that the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied, and the court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction. (R. Doc. 4). In support of his motion, Plaintiff submitted a unilateral post-removal stipulation providing, among other things, that "[n]either plaintiff nor his attorney will accept or seek to recover any portion of a judgment or award in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs," related to this action. (R. Doc. 4-2).
In support of remand, Plaintiff argues that Globe Life failed to meet its burden in establishing this Court's jurisdiction in that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Plaintiff argues that Globe Life has previously asserted limitations on liability to the life insurance policy's "face amount" of $53,500. (R. Doc. 4-1 at 3). Plaintiff argues that since the amount in controversy is not facially apparent, the post-removal stipulation (R. Doc. 4-2) should be allowed to clarify the amount. (R. Doc. 4-1 at 4). Plaintiff argues that since the sworn stipulation is binding and enforceable, it clearly establishes the amount in controversy is below $75,000. (R. Doc. 4-1 at 4). Plaintiff argues that Globe Life failed to meet its burden establishing jurisdiction by submitting supporting summary-judgment type evidence and, instead, provides nothing more than "mere speculation" as to the amount in controversy. (R. Doc. 4-1 at 5-6).
In opposition, Globe Life argues that the amount of damages sought by Plaintiff clearly exceeds $75,000. Globe Life provides a chart detailing that, based on Plaintiff's claims (including the $53,500 sought directly under the policy, up to $107,500 for penalties pursuant to La. R.S. § 22:1973 (as calculated by Globe Life); and $4,350 in penalties pursuant to La. R.S. § 22:1811 (as calculated by Globe Life)), the amount in controversy is facially apparent from thePetition. (R. Doc. 7 at 1-2). Globe Life argues that since Plaintiff's own Petition establishes the amount in controversy, it is not required to submit any summary judgment-type evidence to prove the jurisdictional minimum. (R. Doc. 7 at 3-4). Globe Life argues that Plaintiff's prayer for bad faith penalties and attorneys' fees pursuant to La. R.S. §§ 22:1973, 22:1892, and 22:1811 make it clear that the jurisdictional minimum is satisfied. (R. Doc. 7 at 5-6). Globe Life further argues that a conservative estimate for "mental anguish" damages relating to bad faith would range between $25,000 and $125,000. (R. Doc. 7 at 9). Finally, Globe Life argues that since it is clear from the face of Plaintiff's Petition that the amount in controversy is satisfied, Plaintiff's post-removal stipulation cannot be considered. (R. Doc. 7 at 8-9).
A defendant may remove "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). When original jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the cause of action must be between "citizens of different States" and the amount in controversy must exceed the "sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)-(a)(1). Subject matter jurisdiction must exist at the time of removal to federal court, based on the facts and allegations contained in the complaint. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (). Remand is proper if at any time the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed and any doubt as to the propriety of removal should be resolved in favor of remand. Gasch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007).
If removal is sought on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, then "the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). If, however, the removal is proper "if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000]." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii)-(B). In Louisiana state court, plaintiffs are generally prohibited from alleging a specific monetary amount of damages sought in their petitions. La. Code Civ. P. art. 893(A)(1). This prohibition on alleging a specific amount of damages, however, "is not applicable to a suit on a conventional obligation, promissory note, open account, or other negotiable instrument . . ." La. Code Civ. P. art. 893(B).
The burden of proof is on the removing defendant to establish that the amount in controversy has been satisfied. Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999). The defendant may make this showing by either (1) demonstrating that it is facially apparent that the claims are likely above $75,000, or (2) setting forth facts in controversy that support a finding of the jurisdictional minimum. Id. If the defendant can produce evidence sufficient to show by a preponderance that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, the plaintiff can defeat diversity jurisdiction only by showing to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. See, e.g., St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938); Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 309 F.3d 864, 869 (5th Cir. 2002); De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiffs' failure to include any allegations regarding the amount in controversy to support federal jurisdiction, as required by Louisiana Civil Code of Procedure article 893(A)(1), is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial