The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DELOIS BAXTER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-983-KFP
)
FARMERS INSURANCE, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Delois Baxter’s Motion to Remand. Doc. 13. Defendant
Farmers Insurance removed this case from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County on
December 15, 2025. Doc. 1. Defendant avers this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
under diversity jurisdiction because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in
controversy is satisfied. Doc. 1; Doc. 12.
On June 3, 2026, the Court ordered Defendant show cause why this case should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and ordered the parties to respond. Doc.
11. Defendant filed a response arguing that because Plaintiff has not “expressly
disclaim[ed] the right to recover more than the jurisdictional minimum in her Complaint,”
that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. Doc. 12 ¶¶ 2–3. Plaintiff filed
a Motion to Remand. Doc. 13. Defendant opposes the Motion to Remand. Doc. 14.
On July 15, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Remand. During the
hearing, Plaintiff conceded that, per the allegations in the Complaint, punitive damages and
mental anguish damages are at issue and that the jurisdictional threshold amount in
controversy is met.
For the reasons below, the Court finds that the Motion to Remand is due to be
DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and possess only the power authorized by a
statute or the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). Courts should presume that a case lies outside this limited jurisdiction. Id. The
burden of establishing the contrary is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. Although a
defendant has the statutory right to remove in certain situations, the plaintiff is still the
master of his claim. Burns v. Windsor Ins., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). For that
reason, a “[d]efendant’s right to remove and [a] plaintiff’s right to choose his forum are
not on equal footing.” Id. Moreover, “[b]ecause removal jurisdiction raises significant
federalism concerns, federal courts are directed to construe removal statutes strictly.
Indeed, all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.”
City of Vestavia Hills v. Gen. Fid. Ins., 676 F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 2012) (alteration in
original) (quoting Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Accordingly, a defendant’s removal burden is a heavy one. Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095.
Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over all civil actions where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different states. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). When a plaintiff has not pleaded a specific amount in damages, “the
removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.,
608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (quoting Williams v. Best Buy Co.,
269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)). In some cases, “it may be ‘facially apparent’ from
the [complaint] itself that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
minimum[.]” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754). “If a defendant alleges that removability is apparent from the face
of the complaint, the district court must evaluate whether the complaint itself satisfies the
defendant’s jurisdictional burden.” Id. at 1061. “[T]he ultimate question the court addresses
is whether a defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that should the
plaintiff prevail on a particular claim, the plaintiff, more likely than not, will recover in
excess of the federal jurisdictional prerequisite.” Lowe’s OK’d Used Cars, Inc. v.
Acceptance Ins. Co., 995 F. Supp. 1388, 1393 (M.D. Ala. 1998) (citing Tapscott v. MS
Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996)).
“While it is undoubtedly best to include all relevant evidence in the petition for
removal and motion to remand, there is no good reason to keep a district court from
eliciting or reviewing evidence outside the removal petition.” Sierminski v. Transouth Fin.
Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000); Lee Mem. Health Sys. v. Blue Cross & Blue
Shield of Fla., 248 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1310 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
II. BACKGROUND
This is a homeowner’s insurance policy dispute in which Plaintiff seeks recovery
for an insurance claim she submitted to Defendant concerning property damage to her
home. Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 15–16; Doc. 13 at 5–6. Specifically, Plaintiff claims Defendant failed
to pay Plaintiff for repairs to her home which include payment for replacing Plaintiff’s roof
and drywall and performing repairs to an outbuilding. Doc. 1-1 ¶ 17; Doc. 13 at 5–6. In her
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and bad faith for failure to pay or investigate
Plaintiff’s claim. Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 19–41.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant removed the case pursuant to federal diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1. There
is no dispute that the action is between completely diverse parties: Plaintiff is a citizen of
Alabama and Defendant is incorporated in Rhode Island and has its principal place of
business in California. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 6–8; Doc. 1-1 ¶ 2; Doc. 13. Instead, the dispute centers
on the amount in controversy—Plaintiff did not allege a specific amount in her Complaint
and only alleged that “[t]he amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional
limits of this Honorable Court but does not exceed $75,000.” Doc. 1-1 ¶ 10. Yet, Plaintiff
seeks “all cognizable damages under the law, including but not limited to compensatory
damages, economic losses, mental anguish, contract damages, and punitive damages[.]”
Doc. 1-1 ¶ 42. Attached to Defendant’s Notice of Removal is Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand
in the amount of $54,331.87, which references a supporting estimate and documentation.
Doc. 1-2 at 2.
Defendant argues Plaintiff’s statement limiting damages in her Complaint “does not
constitute a binding limitation” because Plaintiff has not appropriately “formally and
expressly disclaim[ed] the right to recover more than the jurisdictional minimum[.]” Doc.
12 ¶¶ 2–3 (citing Hendrix v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107794
(M.D. Ala. June 6, 2025)). Defendant argues, because Plaintiff’s statement does not
expressly disclaim entitlement to an amount more than the jurisdictional minimum, the
Court must only determine whether Defendant has satisfied the preponderance of the
evidence standard showing that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
threshold. Doc. 12 ¶ 5. Critically, Defendant argues that despite the repair estimate
amounting to only $54,331.87, Plaintiff’s other damages claimed in her Complaint,
including punitive damages and mental anguish, “places the amount in controversy above
the jurisdictional threshold.” Doc. 12 ¶¶ 7–14. In the response brief, Plaintiff argues
Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden because Defendant’s attempt to place a value on
the punitive damages claim “would require the court to engage in ‘pure speculation.’” Doc.
13 at 6 (citing Dean v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29332, at *23–24
(S.D. Ala. Mar. 7, 2014)).1
“[W]here a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages in state court, a
removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy more likely than not exceeds the [$75,000] jurisdictional requirement.” Moss
v. Voyager Ins. Cos., 43 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1301 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (second alteration in
original) (quoting Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1357). This “lower burden of proof is warranted
because there is simply no estimate of damages to which a court may defer.” Id. (quoting
Tapscott, 77 F.3d at 1357).
1 As noted above, at the hearing, Plaintiff conceded her claims for punitive damages and mental anguish
damages along with the estimated repair costs place the amount in controversy over $75,000 based on the
Complaint’s allegations.
“A court may make ‘reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other
reasonable extrapolations from the pleadings to determine whether it is facially apparent’
that the amount in controversy has been met.” Hendrix, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107794, at
*5 (quoting Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061–62). “A court ‘need not suspend reality or shelve
common sense’ when determining whether the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.” Id.
(quoting Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061–62). When considering the evidence, the Court is not
limited to Plaintiff’s Complaint, but “may consider the evidence in and outside the petition
for removal and motion to remand.” Lee Mem. Health Sys., 248 F. Supp. 3d at 1310. This
evidence “must be judged at the time of removal and must support the grounds for removal
found in the Notice of Removal.” Id.
Here, it is not facially apparent from the Complaint whether the amount in
controversy has been satisfied because the Complaint only states “[t]he amount in
controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court but does
not exceed $75,000.” Doc. 1-1 ¶ 10. The Complaint also notes Plaintiff is seeking “all
cognizable damages under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages,
economic losses, mental anguish, contract damages, and punitive damages.[.]” Doc. 1-1
¶ 42. For this reason, it is appropriate to consider Defendant’s Notice of Removal and other
relevant evidence in the record at the time of removal as it pertains to the amount in
controversy. Hendrix, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107794, at *5.
Defendant provides Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand in the amount of $54,331.87, which
was based upon an estimate and supporting documentation. Doc. 1-2. On its own, the repair
costs iterated in the demand do not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. However,
Defendant avers the remaining $20,668.13 to reach the over $75,000 jurisdictional
threshold can be accounted for by considering the potential value of Plaintiff’s mental
anguish damages and punitive damages. Doc. 12 ¶¶ 7–12.
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges breach of contract and seeks damages for mental
anguish. Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 19–24, 42. The Alabama Supreme Court has held in breach of
insurance contract claims is that the “the law in this state does not permit recovery for . . .
mental anguish and suffering” in such an action. Brown v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
358 F. Supp. 3d 1265, 1281 (N.D. Ala. 2018) (quoting Vincent v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield,
Inc., 373 So.2d 1054, 1056 (Ala. 1979)). However, there is an exception allowing for
mental anguish or suffering claims where the action involves a breach of a contract related
to “the repair or construction of a house or dwelling . . . where the breach affected
habitability.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Because Plaintiff has alleged a breach of
contract claim as it relates to the insurance for her home and alleged failure to pay repair
costs under the insurance contract, the Court can reasonably infer that mental anguish
damages may be considered when assessing the amount in controversy.
In addition, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Doc. 1-1 ¶ 42. “When determining the
jurisdictional amount in controversy in diversity cases, punitive damages must be
considered . . . unless it is apparent to a legal certainty that such cannot be recovered.”
Holley Equip. Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp., 821 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1987) (per
curiam). Plaintiff has conceded punitive damages are at issue. And, as Defendant posits,
“Alabama law permits an award of punitive damages in an amount three times the
compensatory damages awarded or $500,000, whichever is greater.” See Battle v.
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34389, at *8–9 (N.D. Ala., Feb. 28,
2020) (citing Ala. Code § 6-11-21(a)). More specifically, in the context of claims asserted
against insurance companies that allege “contract breach, fraud, or other intentional torts,
Defendant notes the punitive damages verdict often exceeds the compensatory damages
verdict.” Doc. 12 at 5 (quoting Henry v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
62428, at *7 (S.D. Ala., Aug. 22, 2007)).
In addition to the persuasive case law cited above, the Court is further persuaded by
the comparable facts in this Court’s decision in Hendrix. Like the present matter, Hendrix
involved a homeowner’s insurance policy dispute where Hendrix suffered damage to his
roof, filed a claim, and alleged State Farm refused to pay. 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107794,
at *1–2. Similar to the facts presented here, in Hendrix, Hendrix made a pre-suit demand
and eventually sued State Farm in state court seeking damages for breach of contract and
bad faith. Id. at *2. State Farm then removed the case to this Court under diversity
jurisdiction. Id. at *3. Hendrix was seeking damages amounting to at least $59,039.87 for
the repairs to his roof in addition to other damages including for attorney’s fees and bad
faith. Id. at *2–6. Hendrix’s complaint did not include an “explicit request for punitive
damages,” but attempted to limit his breach of contract claim to a figure between
$60,000.00 and $74,999.99. Id. at *2–3. On Hendrix’s motion to remand, the case
presented the sole issue of whether the amount in controversy was satisfied. Id. at *4.
Critically, in determining whether the jurisdictional minimum was satisfied, the Court
considered Hendrix’s “bad faith claim” which the Court found “put punitive damages on
the table even if the Complaint [did] not expressly include the phrase ‘punitive damages.’”
Id. at *6–7 (citing Holley, 821 F.2d at 1535). At issue in assessing the amount in
controversy was Hendrix’s pre-suit demand offer seeking $59,039.87, as well as the
$12,000 figure for attorney’s fees, and the inferred punitive damages based on the bad faith
claim. Id. at *6–7. There, the Court found Hendrix’s complaint satisfied the jurisdictional
minimum despite his attempts to limit damages to no more than $74,999.99 in his
complaint. Id. at *4, 7–8.
Here, Plaintiff’s bad faith claim alleges Defendant had a “conscious intent to injure
the Plaintiffs by not paying Plaintiffs[’] Claim as presented and failing to properly
investigate” and that Defendant engaged in “malice, willfulness, and wanton and reckless
disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs.” Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 39–40. The Court does not have to
engage in raw speculation to reasonably infer on the allegations that the remaining
$20,668.13 to reach the over $75,000 jurisdictional threshold is in controversy based upon
the claims for recovery of mental anguish and punitive damages when the repair costs were
$54,331.87 as of March 17, 2025 (Doc. 1-2). See Hendrix, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107794,
*6–7 (finding that based on punitive damages being on the table, “the Complaint’s
allegations lead to the reasonable inference that Hendrix’s lawsuit places a much larger
amount in controversy than simply the $71,039.87 for repair to his roof, interior painting
[($59,039.87)], and attorney’s fees [($12,000 plus)].”). Thus, because the Court must
consider the Complaint and the relevant record evidence at the time of removal when
determining whether the jurisdictional threshold has been satisfied, Hendrix, 2025 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 107794, at *5, the Court finds Defendant has shown by a preponderance of
the evidence the value of compensatory damages, mental anguish damages, and punitive
damages satisfies the requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Defendant has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; thus, the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. Therefore, it is ORDERED Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand (Doc. 13) is DENIED.
DONE this 16th day of July, 2026.
Kea
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10