THOENE

v.

AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Upon a sua sponte review of the record, it appeared unclear whether the amount in controversy in this diversity case satisfied the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold required for removal. Consequently, on February 22, 2023, the Court directed the parties to file a joint brief addressing this issue. (Doc. 18). Defendant filed a brief on March 7, 2023. (Doc. 21). Following further direction from the Court, Plaintiff filed a brief on March 23, 2023. (Docs. 22; 23). After reviewing the briefs, court file, and record, the Court finds the case is due to be remanded due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Background On November¹, 2022, Plaintiff James Thoene filed this case in the Circuit Court for Sarasota County, Florida, asserting a claim for breach of contract against Defendant American Surety Insurance Company. Plaintiff alleged he had an insurance policy issued by Defendant, suffered a property loss, and submitted a timely claim, but Defendant failed “to properly pay the full amount of insurance proceeds owed to Plaintiff” and failed “to provide complete coverage.” With respect to the amount in controversy, the complaint alleged only that it exceeded $30,000,

exclusive of interest and costs. On November 30, 2022, Defendant removed the action to this Court, based on diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1). With respect to the amount in controversy, the removal notice attached and referred to a document that appears to be a repair estimate created on September 12, 2022, by persons unknown, showing a total of $96,458.24. (Doc. 1-7). Defendant asserted the amount in controversy requirement was therefore met. However, the removal notice attached no correspondence, affidavit, or other explanatory material with respect to this document. The notice stated that Plaintiff provided the document to Defendant, and while the notice suggested Plaintiff made a demand for this amount, it did not expressly assert that was the case. That ambiguity, coupled with Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant had failed to pay the “full amount,” led the Court to question the actual amount in controversy.

Defendant’s supplemental brief on jurisdiction fails to clarify matters. Defendant once again refers to the estimate, this time identifying the document as being “from Plaintiff’s adjuster,” and states that “Plaintiff also made a demand to American Security based on Plaintiff’s [e]stimate shortly before this lawsuit was filed.” While Defendant asserts the demand was “based on” the estimate, Defendant nowhere describes or attaches the actual demand, specifically identifies its amount, or states that Plaintiff demanded the entire amount shown in the estimate. Plaintiff denies that he is relying on the estimate in this litigation.

Legal Standard Federal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, have an obligation to inquire into their subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F. 3d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2001); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.”). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) allows a defendant to remove a civil action to federal court when the case is within the federal court’s original jurisdiction. Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941). The removing defendant must establish federal jurisdiction. Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F. 3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008). Any doubt as to the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Univ. of S. Ala.., 168 F. 3d at 411; Butler v. Polk, 592 F. 2d 1293, 1296 (5th Cir. 1979).1

7 / ‘| 1, YL, hee —~ joe! _

TOM BARBER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE