Bango v. Universal Insurance Company
3:15-cv-01299
| D.P.R. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Collision on May 7, 2014 involving Isoris (Mr.) Bango, Wanda (Ms.) Bango, and minor daughter Saira; vehicle suffered only minor rear-bumper scratches.
- Plaintiffs allege physical injuries (neck/upper back pain), medical treatment in Puerto Rico and Florida, and ongoing symptoms; Mr. Bango received epidural injections and was recommended a multilevel cervical fusion; Ms. Bango had >15 physical-therapy sessions and continued complaints as of evaluation.
- Independent medical examiner (Dr. López Reymundí) diagnosed cervical strains: 2% whole-person impairment for Mr. Bango and 1% for Ms. Bango; examined but attributed some disc pathology to a later accident and assumed no preexisting neck problems for Mr. Bango.
- Defendant’s expert (Dr. Suárez Castro) reviewed additional records (including Social Security file) and concluded Mr. Bango had chronic preexisting cervical problems and no impairment attributable to the May 7, 2014 incident.
- Plaintiffs pled damages exceeding $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction; defendant moved for summary judgment arguing amount in controversy does not meet jurisdictional threshold. Court had discovery available when deciding the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction | Plaintiffs allege damages for pain, suffering, and future care exceeding $75,000 (specific higher figures in complaint) | Amount in controversy is legally certain to be under $75,000 given mild impairments and limited vehicle damage | Court: Denied summary judgment — not legally certain that Mr. Bango’s claim is below $75,000; diversity jurisdiction met by Mr. Bango, so supplemental jurisdiction over co-plaintiffs exercised |
| Causation / extent of injury (Mr. Bango) | Injury and need for future surgery supported by medical evidence and evaluations | Defendant’s expert says symptoms predate accident and are not causally linked to May 7, 2014 incident | Court: Weight of competing expert opinions is a matter for jury; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Reliance on preexisting conditions in expert opinions | Plaintiffs emphasize evaluator’s findings linking strains to the incident | Defendant highlights evaluator’s assumption of no prior neck problems and its expert’s contrary findings based on fuller records | Court: Disputed factual issue exists—cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Supplemental jurisdiction for co-plaintiffs | Co-plaintiffs’ claims can proceed if at least one plaintiff meets amount-in-controversy | Defendant argued entire suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Court: Because Mr. Bango satisfied burden that amount-in-controversy may exceed $75,000, court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Bango and Saira |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting principles)
- Spielman v. Genzyme Corp., 251 F.3d 1 (plaintiff must sufficiently particularize amount in controversy when challenged)
- Greenburg v. P. R. Mar. Shipping Auth., 835 F.2d 932 (courts should not weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment)
- Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791 (purpose of summary judgment to test whether trial is required)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (supplemental jurisdiction over co-plaintiffs when one plaintiff meets amount-in-controversy)
- Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5 (court may ignore conclusory allegations and unsupported speculation on summary judgment)