The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
GUL PEKAI RAZAQYAR
and TORIALAY RAZAQYAR,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 8:20-cv-2444-T-33CPT
INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Plaintiffs Gul Pekai Razaqyar and Torialay Razaqyar’s Motion
for Remand (Doc. # 16), filed on November 18, 2020. Defendant
Integon National Insurance Company responded on November 23,
2020. (Doc. # 17). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is
granted.
I. Background
The Court and the parties are both familiar with the
allegations of the complaint and, thus, the Court need not
recite them here. The Razaqyars initiated this insurance
action against Integon in state court on September 18, 2020,
asserting claims for declaratory relief and bad faith. (Doc.
# 1 at 7-13). Integon removed the case to this Court on
October 19, 2020, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
(Id. at 1-4).
Integon then moved to dismiss both counts of the
complaint. (Doc. # 7). The Court dismissed the bad faith claim
without prejudice as unripe but denied the motion to dismiss
as to the claim for declaratory relief. (Doc. # 15).
Now, the Razaqyars seek remand to state court, arguing
that the amount in controversy for the remaining declaratory
relief claim is only $58,000. (Doc. # 16). Integon has
responded (Doc. # 17), and the Motion is ripe for review.
II. Discussion
“Federal courts have limited subject matter
jurisdiction.” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d
1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). As such, “[a] federal court
not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to
inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that
jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v. Seaboard
Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985).
When jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of
citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires, among other
things, that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” If “the
jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent from the
complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal and
may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at
the time the case was removed.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269
F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). When “damages are
unspecified, the removing party bears the burden of
establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of
the evidence.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1208
(11th Cir. 2007).
The complaint does not state a specified claim to
damages. (Doc. # 1 at 7). Instead, Integon argued in its
Notice of Removal that the amount in controversy requirement
was met because the Razaqyars had obtained a state court
judgment for $797,610 plus interest against Integon’s alleged
insureds. (Id. at 2). Notably, however, that amount in
controversy analysis applied when the complaint contained
both claims for declaratory relief regarding the availability
of coverage under the insurance policy and for bad faith.
The claim for bad faith has since been dismissed. Thus,
the amount in controversy requirement now must be met based
on the remaining claim for declaratory relief alone. See Brown
v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., No. 6:13-cv-1982-Orl-31, 2014 WL
1478833, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2014)(“[T]he Court abated
Plaintiff’s bad faith claim as premature, and a non-ripe bad
faith claim has zero value with regard to the amount in
controversy.”); see also Hargrove-Davis v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins., No. 8:18-cv-923-T-33CPT, 2018 WL 4742965, at *3
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2018)(holding that only the amount in
controversy — $20,000 — for a breach of contract claim should
be considered in determining jurisdiction because the
premature bad faith claim for $500,000, as well as other
invalid claims, had been dismissed).
“For amount in controversy purposes, the value of
injunctive or declaratory relief is the ‘value of the object
of the litigation’ measured from the plaintiff’s
perspective.” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255,
1268 (11th Cir. 2000)(citation omitted). “Stated another way,
the value of declaratory relief is ‘the monetary value of the
benefit that would flow to the plaintiff if the [relief he is
seeking] were granted.’” S. Fla. Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 745 F.3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir. 2014)(citation
omitted). While absolute certainty is neither attainable nor
required, the value of declaratory or injunctive relief must
be “sufficiently measurable and certain” to satisfy the
amount in controversy requirement. Morrison, 228 F.3d at
1269.
The Razaqyars argue that the amount of controversy for
the remaining declaratory relief claim is only $58,000 — the
$50,000 bodily injury limits under the insurance policy at
issue combined with the $8,000 for property damage decided by
the jury, which is less than the $25,000 property damage
limits under the policy.1 (Doc. # 16 at 4; Doc. # 16-1 at 1).
The Court agrees.
While the final judgment entered by the state court
against Integon’s alleged insureds far exceeds $75,000, this
Court is only asked in this case to declare the availability
of insurance coverage for the accident. See N.H. Indem. Co.
v. Scott, No. 8:11-cv-943-T-23MAP, 2012 WL 6537098, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2012)(“The amount of damages sought in
the underlying action is relevant only up to the amount for
which the insurer must indemnify the insured. Thus, if the
value of the underlying claim exceeds the insurer’s potential
1 The total policy limit for bodily injury and property damage
equals $75,000. (Doc. # 16 at 4; Doc. # 17 at 3). However,
because the jury determined that there was only $8,000 in
property damage, $58,000 rather than $75,000 is the correct
number to consider. Even if the full policy limit of $75,000
were considered, the amount in controversy requirement still
would not be met because the $75,000 policy limit does not
exceed $75,000. See Zulu v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 1:19 CV 1821,
2019 WL 5677504, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2019)(“As Defendants
point out, Plaintiff’s demand did not exceed $75,000.00 but
instead is $75,000.00 exactly. That does not meet the
jurisdictional requirement.”).
liability under the policy, the amount in controversy in the
declaratory judgment action is the insurer’s potential
liability under the policy — the policy limit.”). And a
declaration by this Court in favor of the Razaqyars would
only lead to $58,000 in value flowing to them. That is,
Integon would only have to provide coverage for $50,000 for
bodily injury damages and the $8,000 attributed to property
damage by the jury if the declaratory judgment claim is
decided against it in this case.
The fact that the Razaqyars hope to recover more through
a bad faith claim in a subsequent case if they are successful
here does not alter the value of the declaratory judgment
claim regarding coverage currently before the Court. See Id.
at *3 (“NHIC argues essentially that, because the present
action serves as a prerequisite to a future, speculative [bad
faith] action, the amount in controversy in the future,
speculative action controls the amount in controversy in the
present action. But a declaratory judgment’s attenuated,
collateral consequence perforce res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or stare decisis contributes nothing to the amount
in controversy.”). In short, the amount in controversy for
the declaratory judgment claim is below the jurisdictional
threshold and the case must be remanded to state court.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiffs Gul Pekai Razagyar and Torialay Razagyar’s
Motion for Remand (Doc. # 16) is GRANTED. The Clerk is
directed to remand this case to state court and thereafter
CLOSE the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd
day of December, 2020.
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE