Boyle v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company
1:12-cv-02903
D. Colo.Nov 9, 2012Background
- Boyle sues State Farm in Colorado state court for delays in insurance coverage and defense related to an accident.
- State Farm removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) alleging complete diversity between the parties.
- Complaint does not specify a sum certain or a damages amount.
- Plaintiff seeks breach-of-contract, bad-faith, and statutory breach damages, including economic and non-economic harms, with no stated monetary value.
- Court must determine whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and Defendant bears the burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there federal jurisdiction under §1332(a) given diversity? | Boyle—diversity exists as alleged. | State Farm—diversity exists; removal proper. | No; jurisdiction not proven due to lack of amount in controversy evidence. |
| Does the amount in controversy exceed $75,000? | Damages unspecified; likely below threshold. | Evidence should show >$75,000 via removal notice. | Insufficient evidence; remand required. |
| Is the civil cover sheet value controlling for AIC? | Value listed on cover sheet indicates >$100,000. | Cover sheet value alone is insufficient to establish AIC. | Insufficient; cannot establish jurisdiction. |
| Do treble damages and attorney fees or non-economic damages push AIC over threshold? | Treble damages and non-economic damages could exceed. | Without reliable damages evidence, cannot prove >$75,000. | Not shown; remand warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & Cty. of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289 (10th Cir. 1980) (court must ensure jurisdiction sua sponte; uncertainties resolved in favor of remand when in doubt)
- Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871 (10th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff's right to forum not controlling; defendant must show amount in controversy by preponderance)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2001) (burden on removing party to establish jurisdiction; resolve uncertainties in favor of remand)
- Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952 (10th Cir. 2002) (presumption against subject-matter jurisdiction; party must show facts to establish removal)
- McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2008) (burden-shifting standards for establishing jurisdiction by preponderance)