Zahn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 2:2017cv05562 - Document 25 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 10 Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/26/2017. (clc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Zahn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Doc. 25 U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A MICH ELLE ZAH N , Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 17-556 2 STATE FARM MU TU AL AU TOMOBILE IN SU RAN CE COMPAN Y, D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is State Farm Mutual Autom obile Insurance Com pany’s (“State Farm ”) m otion to dism iss Plaintiff Michelle Zahn’s claim s pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 20 .1 The m otion is opposed.2 For the following reasons, the m otion is D EN IED . FACTU AL AN D PROCED U RAL BACKGROU N D On March 27, 20 16, Plaintiff was involved in an autom obile accident with Hannah McAllister.3 At the tim e of the accident, McAllister was operating her autom obile while under the influence of alcohol.4 Plaintiff was traveling southbound on North Florida Street when McAllister, who was traveling northbound on North Florida Street, left her lane of travel, entering Plaintiff’s lane and striking her.5 Nine days after the first accident, on April 5, 20 16, Plaintiff was again involved in a car accident, this tim e with Nicholas Sm ith.6 In this accident, Plaintiff was a passenger in a Ford F-150 that was stopped at a 1 R. Doc. 10 . R. Doc. 13. 3 R. Doc. 9 at ¶ 4. 4 Id. at ¶ 11. 5 Id. at ¶¶ 9– 12. 6 Id. at ¶ 5. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com stop sign when Sm ith “entered the intersection . . . while presented with a red traffic control signal light and without yielding to vehicles in that intersection.”7 “When Mr. Sm ith entered the intersection, he struck a vehicle proceeding through the intersection from US 190 South Service Road, and pushed that vehicle into the stationary vehicle carrying [Plaintiff].”8 As a result of the two accidents, Plaintiff sustained serious bodily injuries to her body and m ind including, without lim itation, spinal injuries with related sym ptom s in her extrem ities a closed head injury; together with past and future m ental anguish and physical suffering; past and future loss of enjoym ent of life; past and future expenses for m edical care; permanent disability and im pairm ent; and past and future loss of incom e.9 Although Plaintiff settled her claim s against McAllister, Sm ith, and their respective liability insurers for the aggregate sum of $ 23,467.60 ,10 Plaintiff alleges that her “actual dam ages for each accident exceed those lim its by m ore than $ 75,0 0 0 each.”11 “With both of the underlying liability claim s resolved for the lim its of available coverage,”12 Plaintiff filed suit against her insurance carrier, State Farm , on J une 5, 20 17, pursuing the balance of her dam age from both accidents as well as exem plary dam ages. She subm itted this Court has subject m atter jurisdiction over her claim s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.13 On August 15, 20 17, State Farm filed the instant m otion to dism iss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 20 .14 In support of its 7 Id. at ¶¶ 14, 16. Id. at ¶ 16. 9 Id. at ¶ 18. 10 Id. at ¶ 20 . “Specifically, Ms. McAllister had only $ 15,0 0 0 in liability coverage available per claim ant. Mr. Sm ith had only $ 30 ,0 0 0 in total liability coverage per occurrence, which was split between num erous claim ants.” Id. Neither McAllister nor Sm ith are parties to this case. 11 Id. at ¶ 21. 12 Id. at ¶ 1. 13 Id. at ¶ 6. 14 R. Doc. 10 . 8 2 m otion, State Farm argues: (1) Plaintiff’s claim s m ust be severed, (2) Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to establish she is entitled to exemplary and punitive dam ages, and (3) Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish the am ount in controversy in this case exceeds $ 75,0 0 0 .15 Since filing its m otion to dism iss, State Farm has withdrawn its m otion with respect to severability,16 and Plaintiff has adm itted that State Farm ’s exclusion in its policy for punitive and exem plary dam ages require dism issal of those claim s.17 Thus, the only rem aining issue before the Court with respect to Defendants’ m otion to dism iss is whether Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to support her assertion that her dam ages exceed $ 75,0 0 0 in this case by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the am ount in controversy was not apparent from the face of Plaintiff’s com plaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplem ental m em orandum in opposition to Defendant’s m otion to dism iss as it relates to the am ount in controversy.18 On October 20 , 20 17, Plaintiff filed a supplem ental m em orandum , attaching various m edical bills, diagnoses, and a surgical referral.19 STAN D ARD OF LAW Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the United States district courts possess subject m atter jurisdiction over actions involving citizens of different states when the am ount in controversy exceeds $ 75,0 0 0 .20 For a federal court to decline jurisdiction, it m ust appear 15 Id. R. Doc. 17 at 5. 17 R. Docs. 13 at 2, 17 at 5. 18 R. Doc. 18. 19 R. Doc. 23. 20 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 16 3 to a “legal certainty” that a claim is really for less than the jurisdictional am ount.21 The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.22 “Lack of subject m atter jurisdiction m ay be found in any one of three instances: (1) the com plaint alone; (2) the com plaint supplem ented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the com plaint supplem ented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.”23 When a defendant “challenges the existence of subject m atter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings,” the Court m ay consider “m atters outside the pleadings.”24 “[I]n cases in which a single plaintiff seeks to aggregate two or m ore of [her] own claim s against a single defendant,” the district court m ay look to the sum total of each of the plaintiff’s claim s against a particular defendant to determ ine whether the am ount in controversy is m et.25 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS Plaintiff brings her claim s against State Farm in federal court based on this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.26 Title 28, section 1332 of the United States Code provides “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the m atter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,0 0 0 , exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.”27 21 De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 140 4, 140 9 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Hom e Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 10 0 6, 10 10 (5th Cir. 1998); Edinburgh v. Am . Sec. Ins. Co., No. 10 -613, 20 10 WL 3923292, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 28, 20 10 ). 22 Ram m ing v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 20 0 1). 23 Id. (quoting Barrera– Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996)). 24 Menchaca v. Chry sler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 50 7, 511 (5th Cir.1980 ). 25 Sny der v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 335 (1969); Alberty v. W estern Surety Co., 249 F.2d 537, 538 (10 th Cir. 1957); N at’l Soc. Of Pub. Accountants, 20 0 F.2d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 1953) (“That the claim s m ay also be aggregated to m ake up the jurisdictional am ount in a case such as this is too clear for com m ent . . . .”). 26 R. Doc. 1. ¶ 6. 27 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 4 It is undisputed that the parties in this case are diverse. Instead, State Farm argues “Plaintiff’s Original Citation and First Am ended Citation are wholly inadequate in providing this Court and State Farm with allegations or evidence sufficient to determ ine the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, let alone whether either claim can exceed the jurisdictional m inim um .”28 According to State Farm , “Plaintiff m ust establish that she sustained $ 75,0 0 0 worth of injuries as a result of the first accident and not attribute any of those dam ages to her second accident. While at the sam e tim e, Plaintiff m ust establish that after the second accident, she incurred $ 75,0 0 0 worth of injuries separate and distinct from the injuries she allegedly sustained in the first accident.”29 In opposition, Plaintiff contends she m ay aggregate her claim s against State Farm to m eet the requisite the am ount in controversy in this case. 30 Since filing her com pliant, Plaintiff has provided the Court with several m edical bills, diagnoses, and a surgical referral.31 According to Plaintiff, since the accident, she has incurred over $ 40 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in m edical bills,32 and she has not yet received bills from several other healthcare providers.33 Finally, Plaintiff has subm itted evidence of her diagnosis, along with a recom m endation from her physician that she undergo “a single-level anterior lum bar discectom y and interbody fusion.”34 In support of her argument that these injuries establish the requisite amount in controversy exists in this case, Plaintiff points to Jones v. Harris, a case in which a jury 28 R. Doc. 10 -1 at 4. R. Doc. 10 -1 at 4. 30 R. Doc. 13 at 8– 9. 31 R. Doc. 23. 32 Id. at 1. 33 Id. (listing “Southern Pain and Neurological, Lakeview Surgical Specialists, Cypress Pointe Surgical Hospital, Sum m it Anesthesia, Inc., J efferson Am bulatory Surgical Center, and Cypress Pointe Pain Managem ent”). 34 Id. at 23. 29 5 awarded the plaintiff $ 50 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in general damages for a lumbar spine injury at L5-S1 following a car accident,35 and W alters v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co., a case in which a jury awarded $ 30 0 ,0 0 0 to a plaintiff who sustained herniated discs at L4-5 and L5-S1 for which surgery was recommended but not performed.36 The Court notes it m ay properly consider these docum ents to determ ine whether jurisdiction exists in this case,37 and that Plaintiff’s dam age allegations m ay be considered in the aggregate.38 To date, Plaintiff has incurred $ 43,153.96 in m edical bills, with six healthcare providers yet to bill her for her past m edical expenses. Plaintiff also subm its she intends to undergo the recom m ended back surgery, for which juries in sim ilar cases have awarded well over the necessary $ 75,0 0 0 am ount in controversy. Thus, even deducting the $ 23,467.60 Plaintiff received from McAllister and Sm ith, based on the evidence Plaintiff subm itted with respect to the am ount in controversy, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown the requisite am ount is m et in this case by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly; CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that the Defendants’ m otion to dism iss for lack of jurisdiction is D EN IED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 6 th d ay o f Octo be r, 2 0 17. _____________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 35 20 0 4-0 965 (La. App. 4 Cir. 20 0 5), 896 So.2d 237. 0 7-257 (La. App. 3d 5/ 30 / 0 7), 958 So. 2d 157. 37 Ram m ing, 281 F.3d at 161; Menchaca, 613 F.2d at 511. 38 Sny der, 394 U.S. at 335; Alberty , 249 F.2d at 538. 36 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
