Darryl A. Vachon v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company
20 F.4th 1343
11th Cir.2021Background
- In 2013 Vachon (FL) sued Travelers (CT) in Florida state court for underinsured motorist benefits; policy limits were $25,000 so the case was not then removable on the basis of diversity.
- At a 2020 trial the jury awarded Vachon about $1,022,780, but the state court entered judgment limited to the $25,000 policy and reserved jurisdiction to consider a bad-faith claim arising from the verdict in excess of policy limits.
- On April 27, 2020 Vachon amended his complaint to add a statutory bad-faith claim seeking the full verdict; Travelers removed the case to federal court on May 26, 2020 based on diversity (amount in controversy now > $75,000).
- Vachon moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) (more than one year after commencement); the district court granted remand.
- Travelers appealed; the Eleventh Circuit raised whether it has appellate jurisdiction given 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars review of remand orders based on defects in removal procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review a remand order based on untimely removal | Vachon: § 1447(d) bars appellate review of remand orders for defects in removal procedure | Travelers: matter-of-substantive-law exception permits review because district court allegedly decided substantive law | Held: No jurisdiction — § 1447(d) precludes appeals of remands for removal defects (untimely removal); appeal dismissed |
| If reach on merits, whether removal was timely under § 1446(c)(1) (when does the one-year clock start) | Vachon: “commencement of the action” means filing of the original complaint in 2013, so removal in 2020 was untimely | Travelers: the bad-faith claim is a new, separate action/claim so the one-year period restarts on amendment | Held: Court did not decide due to lack of jurisdiction; concurrence would affirm remand and hold the one-year period runs from the original 2013 filing (removal untimely) |
Key Cases Cited
- BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021) (interprets the scope of § 1447(d) and limits appellate-review bar to remands under § 1447(c))
- Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995) (untimely removal is a removal defect contemplated by § 1447(c))
- Aquamar S.A. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 179 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (describes the "matter of substantive law" exception to § 1447(d))
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (a remand order’s silence on certain legal bases forecloses assuming the order rests on unmentioned substantive state-law determinations)
- Calderon v. Aerovias Nacionales de Colom., 929 F.2d 599 (11th Cir. 1991) (exception inapplicable when substantive issue is intrinsic to remand decision)
- In re Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 123 F.3d 1407 (11th Cir. 1997) (an order remanding a case is a final decision for purposes of appellate jurisdiction)