WALKER

v.

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

1 Walker’s bad-faith claim (Count II) is subject to a separate motion to dismiss. (Doc. 5). underinsured motorist policy limits. (See id.). In response, Walker argues that Geico failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 11). To support his argument, Walker argues that the complaint alleges only that the amount in controversy exceeds $30,000. (Id.). Thus, Walker concludes that the Court should remand this case to state court. (Id.). Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See § 1332(a). Walker and Geico agree that diversity of citizenship exists in this case: The issue is the amount in controversy. A defendant who removes a case from state court to federal court bears the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists. Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F. 3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). In some cases, it is “facially apparent” from the state-court complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 even if the complaint claims no specific amount of damages. Roe v. Michelin N.A., Inc., 613 F. 3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010). But if the state-court complaint fails to specify the amount in controversy, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Williams, 269 F. 3d at 1319. To meet that burden, the defendant may introduce affidavits, declarations, or other documentation showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Pretka v. Kolter v. City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F. 3d 744, 755 (11th Cir. 2010). Geico satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Geico points to the complaint’s allegations that Walker “is entitled to the limits of underinsured motorist benefits under the policy.” (Doc. 1-1, 412). Attached to the complaint is a copy of the insurance policy, which states the underinsured motorist benefits limits is $100,000 per person, $300,000 per occurrence. (Doc. 1-1, p. 8). These facts alone satisfy Geico’s burden that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Geico also points to other documents showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000: a demand letter from Walker for the full $100,000 policy limit (Doc. 1-3); a letter from Walker stating that his future medical costs are $238,705.43 (Doc. 1- 6); and a civil remedy notice stating that the policy “limits of $100,000 must be tendered to resolve all claims” (Doc. 1-7). Geico has sufficiently met its burden for removal purposes. Accordingly, Walker’s motion for remand (Doc. 11) is DENIED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 4, 2021.