Hawkinson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
325 F. Supp. 3d 1293
M.D. Fla.2018Background
- In Nov. 2013 Hawkinson sued the at-fault driver and State Farm in Florida state court for negligence and uninsured motorist benefits; State Farm was served in Nov. 2013.
- After trial the state court found coverage under the parents' policy; Hawkinson moved to amend to add a statutory bad faith claim against State Farm (filed Apr. 25, 2016) and punitive damages against the driver.
- Final judgment on the uninsured motorist claim was entered Nov. 18, 2016; the Florida appellate court affirmed coverage on Mar. 8, 2018.
- State Farm removed the bad faith claim to federal court on Apr. 5, 2018, invoking diversity jurisdiction; Hawkinson moved to remand asserting untimeliness, waiver, and improper piecemeal removal.
- The district court held that the action commenced when the original complaint was filed in Nov. 2013 and that adding the bad faith claim by amendment does not start a new action; removal more than one year after commencement was therefore untimely.
- The court granted remand to state court and did not reach the waiver or piecemeal-removal arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of an amended bad-faith claim is timely when filed >1 year after the original state-court complaint | Hawkinson: removal was untimely because the action commenced when the original complaint was filed in Nov. 2013, so the one-year removal window expired in Nov. 2014 | State Farm: bad-faith claim accrued post-judgment (upon finality/appeal resolution), so it constituted a separate action and removal in Apr. 2018 was timely | Court: Amendment adding bad-faith claim does not commence a new action; removal >1 year after original commencement is untimely — remand granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 264 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir. 2001) (removal requirements strictly construed; ambiguities resolved against removal)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff is master of his claim; removal doubts favor remand)
- Barroso v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 958 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (addition of bad-faith claim by amendment does not reset removal clock)
- King v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., [citation="579 F. App'x 796"] (11th Cir. 2014) (noting intra-district split on whether post-verdict bad-faith claim starts a new action)