BIGLEY

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff Christina Bigley moves to remand this insurance action against Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) because she claims her covered loss is less than the jurisdictional amount in controversy. (Doc. 12.) After reviewing the parties’ evidence, the Court could not conclusively determine whether the amount in controversy was indeed less than $75,000, or if Ms. Bigley was attempting to divest the Court of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court directed Ms. Bigley to file a supplemental affidavit addressing: (1) what covered losses she sought to recover on the date of removal, (2) whether the losses were repaired before the notice of removal was filed, (3) the date and cost of any such repairs, and (4) any discrepancies between the actual cost of repair and Ms. Bigley’s prior estimates. (Doc. 27.)¹ Ms. Bigley filed the supplemental affidavit

Bigley totaling $145,272.31. (Docs. 1-4, 1-5). Ms. Bigley moves for remand because she claims she completed “full repairs” for “a total cost of $46,148.50” two months before Liberty Mutual removed this case. (Doc. 15 at 1–3.) Initially, Ms. Bigley’s evidence consisted of invoices for minor bathroom repairs, some of which pre-dated the loss. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 8; Doc. 15 at 77–78.) The scope of the work reflected in the invoices was much narrower than the work in Moreau’s estimate. Ms. Bigley now provides the Court with more detailed records suggesting that all covered repairs to her residence were completed for $53,648.50—different than her previous figure of $46,148.50 but still less than $75,000. (Doc. 28-1, Ex. D.) Ms. Bigley claims the repairs were much cheaper than initial estimates due to “various negotiation with contractors, competitive pricing, and good fortune.” (Doc. 28 at 6.) Ms. Bigley’s affidavit also provides some important factual context: Ms. Bigley apparently suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and currently resides at an assisted living facility in Georgia.² (Doc. 28 at ¶ 3.) In other words, she no longer lives at the insured property and has no intention of paying for any future repairs to it. (Id. at ¶ 7.)3 While Ms. Bigley’s current place of residence is not necessarily

the Court is unable to conclude that Liberty Mutual has established an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. Given the level of uncertainty regarding the amount in controversy, the Court has determined that remand is required. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Ms. Bigley’s amended motion to remand (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.

but before Liberty Mutual removed the case. (Doc. 28 at ¶ 7; Doc. 28-1 at 22.) 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to REMAND this case to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, terminate any pending deadlines and motions, and close the file. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on May 28, 2021.

Pte. a hioftlhu, hr

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE