Andrea L. Dammann v. Progressive Direct Insurance
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8340
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Andrea Dammann and May Yang, Minnesota residents, purchased Progressive auto policies that included a $100 medical deductible and $200 economic-loss deductible.
- Policies provided only statutory minimums: $20,000 medical and $20,000 economic loss per person. After deductibles, plaintiffs received $19,900 for >$20,100 medical expenses.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Minnesota state court alleging Progressive’s deductibles produced benefit payments below the statutory minimums and sought class relief.
- Progressive removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); plaintiffs moved to remand arguing the amount in controversy did not meet the $5,000,000 threshold.
- District court denied remand, then granted Progressive’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding the Minnesota No Fault Act permits deductibles that can reduce payments below the listed minimums; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court had CAFA jurisdiction (amount in controversy) | Amount-in-controversy should be limited to class members who actually received payments below statutory minimums; plaintiffs are master of the complaint. | Amount-in-controversy may be established using Progressive’s total premiums on policies containing the challenged deductible practice; a factfinder could find aggregate exposure exceeds $5M. | Court affirmed: Progressive met preponderance standard; plaintiffs failed to establish to a legal certainty recovery < $5M, so remand denied. |
| Whether Minnesota No Fault Act forbids policies whose deductibles reduce payments below statutory minimums (12(b)(6) merits) | Statute’s minimum benefit language should be read as independent from the clause allowing deductibles, so benefits must be at least the listed minimums after deductibles. | Statute permits basic benefits “subject to any applicable deductibles,” allowing policies whose application of deductibles results in payments below the listed minima. | Court affirmed dismissal: interpreting legislative intent and prior district precedent (Aarvig), the statute allows deductibles that can reduce payments below the listed minimums. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing CAFA amount-in-controversy and plaintiff-as-master-of-complaint principle)
- Raskas v. Johnson & Johnson, 719 F.3d 884 (8th Cir.) (overinclusiveness in amount-in-controversy analysis; whether a factfinder might legally conclude aggregate exposure meets CAFA threshold)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Prot. All., LLC, 620 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for factual findings supporting jurisdiction)
- Trooien v. Mansour, 608 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) review standards)
- Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. McDonough, 608 F.3d 388 (8th Cir.) (predicting Minnesota Supreme Court interpretation of state law)
- Aarvig v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 287 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (D. Minn.) (earlier district-court interpretation that No Fault Act permits deductibles reducing coverage below statutory minima)