Holtrey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2:24-cv-02525

Ashley Holtrey sued State Farm, her uninsured motorist carrier, after a car accident with an uninsured driver on May 2, 2024.
Holtrey's counsel sent a pre-suit demand for $100,000 (policy limits) and a petition to State Farm on July 25, 2024, but State Farm did not receive the email due to a technical error.
The email was forwarded and received by State Farm on August 5, 2024, without notification that the suit had already been filed; formal service occurred on August 15, 2024.
Holtrey’s counsel continued to reference the policy limits demand in communications on August 19, 2024.
On October 18, 2024, Holtrey increased the demand to $219,942 (including penalties), and State Farm removed the case to federal court on October 22, 2024.
Holtrey moved to remand, arguing the removal was untimely because State Farm was on notice of the amount in controversy prior to October.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Removal	Amount in controversy was clear by August 5, 15, or 19 due to policy limits demand	Not unequivocally clear and certain as to amount in controversy until October 18; treated prior communications as insufficient	Removal was untimely; the August 19 email referencing the $100,000 demand triggered the 30-day removal period
Amount in Controversy Apparent in Petition	Petition plus demand letter made it facially apparent claim exceeded $75,000	Petition was vague, did not specify a dollar amount, and injuries alleged were conclusory	Court agreed petition was not facially apparent but found policy limit demand sufficed
Effect of Pre-Suit Demand	Pre-suit demand for $100,000 put State Farm on notice	Pre-suit demands before service do not trigger removal period	Removal period began after formal service and a clear demand referencing the $100,000 policy limit
Sufficiency of Demand Letter as “Other Paper”	Policy limit demand is unequivocal and sufficiently clear	Lack of a specific dollar amount in email/reference to policy limits generally not always enough	Policy limit demand, referencing known limits, is sufficient “other paper” to trigger removal period

Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (burden is on removing party to show jurisdiction and propriety of removal)
Bosky v. Kroger Texas, LP, 288 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2002) (removal clock begins when it is unequivocally clear and certain the amount in controversy is met)
Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1992) (the 30-day removal period is triggered by receipt of an initial pleading or later "other paper" showing removability)
Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (removal clock does not begin until formal service on defendant)