Opinion
8:21-cv-1547-KKM-AAS
08-05-2021
KATHLEEN CROTTS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER
KATHRYN KIMBALL MIZELLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Kathleen Crotts moves to remand this action to state court. (Doc. 8). She argues that Southern Owners failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See (Doc. 8). Her arguments fail.
The parties do not dispute that diversity exists between them. See (Doc. 8). The Court is also satisfied that diversity exists. See (Doc. 1 at 4).
Crotts claims uninsured, underinsured motorist benefits and alleges that she “performed all conditions precedent to entitle recovery under the [insurance policy with Southern Owners], but . . . Southern Owners denied that coverage exists and/or refused to pay [Crotts] the full value of the claim.” (Doc. 1-8 at ¶ 11). Attached to the complaint is a copy of Crotts's insurance policy with Southern Owners which states that her bodily injury coverage limit is “$250,000 person/$500,000 occurrence.” (Id. at 5). These facts at least make it possible that Crotts seeks a minimum of $75,000. See Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001).
Southern Owners demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence though that, not only is it possible that the lawsuit exceeds the amount in controversy, it is exactly what Crotts is seeking. Southern Owners attaches a demand letter from Crotts for the full $250,000 policy limits (Doc. 1-5 at 1); a statement in that demand letter that her future pain and suffering will cost $1,827,920 (Id. at 4); and a civil remedy notice stating that Crotts's damages “far exceed the underlying . . . underinsured motorist limits of $250,000.” (Doc. 1-6 at 5); see also Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 1994) (“While [a] settlement offer, by itself, may not be determinative, it counts for something.”). As a result, Southern Owners established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Crotts's motion for remand (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
ORDERED.