Lukas v. Middlesex Insurance Company
3:25-cv-05198
W.D. Wash.Jun 10, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Zakery Lukas was injured in a motorcycle collision caused by an unidentified hit-and-run driver.
- Lukas filed a claim with his insurer, Middlesex Insurance Company, seeking underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits.
- Middlesex allegedly undervalued the claim and assigned 50% fault to Lukas, prompting litigation.
- Lukas brought breach of contract and extracontractual claims in Clark County Superior Court, in accordance with a forum selection clause in the insurance policy requiring filing in Washington State Court.
- Middlesex removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction due to the parties' diversity and amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
- Lukas moved for remand, contending the forum selection clause barred removal to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forum clause bars federal removal | Forum selection clause requires state court; bars removal | Clause only governs initial filing, silent on removal | Forum selection clause does not bar removal to federal court |
| Interpretation of insurance contract | Policy should be interpreted as average purchaser would | Clause does not express or imply waiver of removal rights | No indication of waiver; policy silent; no ambiguity |
| Ambiguity of clause | Silence on removal creates ambiguity requiring plaintiff-favor | No ambiguity; only covers insured's filing obligation | No ambiguity found; clause is not reasonably read as barring removal |
| Entitlement to costs/fees on remand | Court should grant fees if remand appropriate | Not addressed directly | Remand denied; fees not awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum selection clauses are controlling unless they expressly bar removal or dictate exclusive jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statutes strictly construed; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing party has burden to prove federal jurisdiction)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. English Cove Ass'n, Inc., 121 Wn. App. 358 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (insurance policies interpreted as average purchaser would understand)