Smulley v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill.
Decision Date | 03 August 2021 |
Docket Number | 3:20-cv-01888 (JAM) |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | DOROTHY A. SMULLEY, Plaintiff, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS et al., Defendants. |
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION
This case is about an old car worth less than $8, 000. After the plaintiff crashed the car on an icy road, she wanted her insurance company to pay to repair it rather than to declare it “totaled” and pay the replacement value. But because the company did not agree with the plaintiff, she has filed this pro se federal lawsuit against the insurance company as well as another company that furnishes valuation data to the insurance company. The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief against both companies as well as damages against the data-providing company under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
As an initial matter, I will deny the plaintiff's motion to recuse. I also conclude that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. The complaint does not allege a cause of action that arises under federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. Nor does the complaint allege facts suggesting a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000 for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, I will dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
In late November 2018, plaintiff Dorothy A. Smulley was driving her car-a 2010 Chrysler Sebring Limited-when she had a car accident on an icy road in western Pennsylvania.[1]Her car skidded and hit a metal median resulting in damage to a fender, headlight, and bumper.[2]No other cars were involved in the accident, and neither Smulley nor her spouse who was in the car with her were injured.[3] Despite the accident, the car continued to be fully operable, and Smulley drove the car more than 300 miles back to her home in Connecticut.[4]
Smulley timely reported the accident to her car insurance company defendant Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (“Safeco”).[5] Her policy limited Safeco's liability to pay the lower of either the actual cash value of the car or the amount necessary to repair or replace it.[6]
On December 5, 2018, a Safeco employee named Juan Carlos Maldonado completed an appraisal of the car.[7] When Safeco performs valuations for purposes of car insurance claims, it uses certain software programs developed by defendant CCC Information Services Inc. aka CCC Intelligent Solutions Holdings Inc. (“CCC”).[8] CCC is in the business of collecting automobile-related information through software programs and then processing the data to sell to insurance companies like Safeco.[9]
Using one of CCC's software programs, Maldonado determined the car's pre-loss value to be $7, 840.[10] He also completed a repair estimate using another CCC software program that estimated repairs would cost $4 873.75.[11] Because the pre-loss value of the car exceeded the estimated repairs, he recommended repair of the car.[12]
The car was towed by Safeco from Smulley's home in Connecticut to Traynor Collision Center (“Traynor”).[13] But, according to Smulley, Maldonado had a contentious relationship with Traynor manager Ben Dituri.[14] Maldonado told Zachary Allyn, his supervisor at Safeco, about this conflict after completing his first estimate.[15] Maldonado and Allyn decided not to repair the car, and Allyn instructed Maldonado to disassemble it so that it would not operate or function.[16]
On December 11, 2018, after disassembling the car, Maldonado completed a second repair estimate using CCC's software that increased the repair cost to $5, 795.73, and he now reclassified the car as a total loss.[17] Allyn told Smulley that he would reclassify and repair the car if it were moved to Breezy Point Auto Body Inc. (“Breezy”), a different Safeco repair facility.[18]
On December 13, 2018, Smulley's car was towed from Traynor to Breezy, and Breezy paid Traynor $1, 471.36 in storage fees.[19] Allyn had Breezy employee Paul Kristopik disassemble the car again, and he had him include the towing expenses in the repair estimate as “other charges.”[20]
On December 14, 2018, Kristopik produced a third repair estimate of $7, 991.27, and he classified the car as a total loss.[21] Allyn left Smulley a message that day stating that the car was a total loss that would not be repaired, and he then refused any further communication with her.[22]
In January 2019, Smulley sued Safeco, Traynor, and Breezy in Connecticut state court, alleging that Safeco was negligent and breached Smulley's insurance contract.[23] In February 2020, a state court judge granted Safeco's motion to compel binding appraisal or arbitration as to the amount of the loss of Smulley's car, and to stay the litigation pending the appraisal process.[24]
Smulley filed several motions for reconsideration and appeals, as well as two motions to remove the state court judge, all of which were denied or dismissed.[25] Smulley's car has remained at Breezy during the pendency of the state court litigation, which has required Smulley to purchase another car and to incur debt through a car loan and additional insurance payments.[26]
In December 2020, Smulley filed this federal lawsuit against Safeco and CCC. The amended complaint alleges three counts. Count One seeks a declaratory judgment against Safeco that “declares the original estimate and appraisal dated December 5, 2018 operative under the standard provisions of [Smulley's] basic personal automobile insurance policy in the state of Connecticut.”[27] Count Two seeks a declaratory judgment that CCC has a duty to comply with three statutory provisions of Connecticut state law: Conn. Gen Stat. §§ 14-65f, 38a-353, and 38a-355.[28] Count Three seeks a declaratory judgment that CCC's practices violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g, and seeks costs, fees, and punitive damages.[29]
The defendants have moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Smulley has opposed both motions and cross-moved for summary judgment in her favor. Smulley has also filed a motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144.[30]
I will first address Smulley's motion for recusal before addressing additional issues.
I held oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss on May 26, 2021. In light of the ongoing pandemic, the argument was noticed to proceed by the Zoom video/audio platform, and an entry on the docket stated: “All parties and members of the public may use the Zoom access information to observe the proceeding by video or by audio.”[31]
Each of the parties and counsel identified themselves for the record at the outset of the hearing.[32] Smulley appeared pro se by telephone rather than by video.[33] Local counsel for CCC-attorney Christopher Williams of the law firm of Conway Stoughton LLC-noted his presence, and the transcript reflects the following exchange involving a disclosure by the court reporter that her spouse works at the same law firm:
I then heard argument on the pending motions from Smulley as well as from counsel for the defendants. There was no objection by Smulley or any reference during the remainder of the hearing to the employment of the court reporter's spouse at one of the law firms for one of the parties in the case.
Following the hearing I verified with the court reporter that her husband (who is an attorney) had no involvement with this case, and then I asked my law clerk to research whether the employment status of a court reporter's spouse as an attorney at a law firm that is appearing as counsel in a case constitutes grounds for a judge to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455.
The answer was no, and so I entered the following order on July 6, 2021 (approximately six weeks after the hearing) stating that I had considered the issue and concluded that there was no basis for recusal:
MEMORANDUM RE COURT REPORTER. During the course of oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on May 26, 2021, the court reporter disclosed that her spouse is an attorney at one of the law firms involved in this case (Conway Stoughton LLC). The Court has verified that the court reporter's spouse has no involvement with this case. Because the court reporter serves a ministerial function of recording the proceedings and has no involvement with the Court's substantive decision-making in this case or any case, the Court concludes under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) that there is no basis for recusal. See, e.g., In re Horne, 630 Fed.Appx. 908, 911-12 (11th Cir. 2015) (“we are unable to locate any cases suggesting that a judge's administrative employee's relationship with a witness is grounds for the judge's recusal” and that “[t]o the contrary, recusal is warranted on the basis of a judicial employee's relationships only when the employee has (or appears to have) a role in the substantive decision-making process”) that ; see also Mathis v. Huff & Puff Trucking, Inc., 787 F.3d 1297,...
To continue reading
Request your trial