COURT WOULD NOT REMAND BAD FAITH CASE EVEN THOUGH INSURED PLEADED CLAIM WAS WORTH LESS THAN $75,000; BAD FAITH CLAIM DISMISSED FOR MAKING BOILERPLATE ALLEGATIONS (Philadelphia Federal)
This property damage bad faith case was removed to federal court, and plaintiff wanted a remand.
Judge Jones observed that once the amount in controversy is challenged, the removing defendant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the case value exceeds $75,000, the jurisdictional minimum. In a bad faith case, the court can consider punitive damages and potential attorney’s fees in making this calculation.
The property damage claim was in excess of $65,200, and it would appear that with punitive damages and attorney’s fees the bad faith claim would easily exceed the $75,000 minimum. However, plaintiff apparently pleaded in his ad damnum clause that the damages exceeded $50,000 (avoiding arbitration), but were not in excess of $75,000 (attempting to avoid removal). Judge Jones found this language in the ad damnum clause did not prevent removal.
Specifically, after discussing prior case law and pleading standards under Pennsylvania’s Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Jones (who sat for many years as a Court of Common Pleas judge) found that the insured’s “attempt to artificially cap the amount in controversy ‘as less than $75,000.00’ through an ad damnum clause is inconsistent with Pennsylvania’s pleading rules.” The opinion cites numerous cases where the punitive damage and attorney fees claims pushed an actual damage claim otherwise below the $75,000 minimum over the jurisdictional threshold.
Judge Jones next addressed the insurer’s motion to dismiss the bad faith claim. The insurer argued that the bad faith count failed to set forth a single fact, relying solely on boilerplate generic allegations. The court agreed, observing “[t]he allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint purporting to state a claim for bad faith are in fact identical to the allegations from a prior complaint filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in another case, which this Court found to be insufficient to state a claim in … Clapps v. State Farm Ins. Cos….” The court did grant leave to file an amended complaint.
Date of Decision: July 10, 2020