Hyatt v. Nationwide General Insurance Company
7:24-cv-06219
D.S.C.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Veronica Michelle Hyatt, purchased a 2021 Ram 2500 pickup and an insurance policy with Nationwide that included "New Car Replacement Plus Coverage."
- On March 22, 2024, her truck was totaled in an accident, and Plaintiff filed a total loss claim under the policy.
- Nationwide paid only the fair market value of the truck, not the full replacement cost for a new vehicle as Plaintiff sought.
- Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and related claims; Defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The court considered Plaintiff’s motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction and Nationwide’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand/Jurisdiction | The amount in controversy, net of Nationwide’s offer, is below $75,000; federal court has no jurisdiction. | Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on the full value sought. | Plaintiff seeks over $75,000; removal proper. Motion to remand denied. |
| Breach of Contract | Coverage entitles her to full replacement cost (new vehicle), claim should survive. | Policy only covers fair market value after 3 years; no breach occurred. | Plaintiff plausibly alleges breach; Motion to dismiss denied (in part). |
| SCUTPA Claim | SCUTPA applies; unfair practices alleged. | SCUTPA doesn't apply to insurance; claim must be dismissed. | SCUTPA doesn't apply; claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Remaining Claims | Misrepresentation and other related claims are actionable based on how the policy was procured. | Economic loss rule and no misrepresentation in procurement. | Claims plausibly stated; not dismissed at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for pleading and motion to dismiss)
- Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148 (party seeking removal bears burden of establishing jurisdiction)
- Mylan Lab’ys, Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130 (standards for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 175 (court need not accept legal conclusions at motion to dismiss)