January 2007 BAD FAITH CASES
COURT RULES THERE IS NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHENEVER IT IS POSSIBLE AN INSURED WILL RECOVER LESS THAN THE AMOUNT-IN-CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insured filed two claims: one for breach of contract and one for bad faith.  Each claim was followed by a demand for judgment “not in excess of $50,000.”  The case was removed by the insurer to federal court, which has an amount-in-controversy minimum of $75,000 for this type of case.  The United States District Court remanded the case to state court.  It ruled that there was not a legal certainty that the insured, if successful on her claims, would recover in excess of $75,000.  The court reasoned that possible punitive damages and/or attorney’s fees awards in the tens-of-thousands of dollars were “speculative.”  In the court’s mind, the insured’s refusal to concede that her damages were less than $75,000 did not control.

Date of Decision: October 11, 2006.

Uccelletti v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 06-4065, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94578 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (Davis, J.).

0 Responses to “January 2007 BAD FAITH CASES
COURT RULES THERE IS NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHENEVER IT IS POSSIBLE AN INSURED WILL RECOVER LESS THAN THE AMOUNT-IN-CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT (Philadelphia Federal)”


Comments are currently closed.