Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00558/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00558-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEANA HARRIS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0558-WS-M

 )

MENNONITE PROPERTY AID )

ASSOCIATION, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Doc. 4). The

parties have filed briefs and evidentiary materials in support of their respective positions,

(Docs. 4, 11, 12), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After carefully considering the

foregoing and other relevant materials in the file, the Court concludes that the motion is

due to be denied.

This action was filed in the Circuit Court of Escambia County on or about July 3,

2007. The defendant removed on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Because the

complaint on its face demands payment of $398,500, (Doc. 1, Exhibit A at 4), the amount

in controversy requirement is plainly satisfied. The plaintiff does not argue otherwise. 

(Doc. 4 at 3, ¶ 8). 

The parties agree that the plaintiff is a citizen of Alabama and that the defendant is

an unincorporated association. For complete diversity of citizenship to exist when such

an entity is the defendant, no member of the association can be a citizen of the same state

as the plaintiff. E.g., Rolling Hills MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374

F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004); Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 232 F.3d

854, 860 (11th Cir. 2000). As the removing party, the defendant “bears the burden of

establishing the citizenship of the parties.” Rolling Hills, 374 F.3d at 1022.

To meet its burden, the defendant has submitted the affidavit of its manager, who

Case 1:07-cv-00558-WS-M Document 13 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

testifies on personal knowledge that: (1) membership in the defendant is limited to those

who have paid premiums to obtain the loss coverage the defendant offers; (2) although

the defendant previously offered policies in Alabama, the last such policy expired in

December 2004; and (3) as of July 3, 2007, the defendant had members only in Colorado. 

(Doc. 11, Exhibit A). 

The plaintiff counters with two substantively identical affidavits submitted by a

husband and wife, who testify on personal knowledge that: (1) they are lifelong residents

of Alabama; (2) they became members of the defendant before 2004; (3) they were told

by the defendant’s Alabama agent that the defendant would stop offering insurance at the

end of 2004; (4) the agent told them the defendant might resume selling insurance in

Alabama at some later date; (5) they are still hopeful this will happen; (6) the agent did

not tell them their membership had terminated; and (7) no writing informed them that

their membership would terminate when their insurance coverage ended. Therefore, they

conclude, they remain members of the defendant. (Doc. 12, Exhibits 1 and 2). The

plaintiff also points to two letters written her in December 2003 that described her as a

“member” of the defendant. (Doc. 4 at 2, ¶ 4 (citing Doc. 1, Exhibit A, Exhibits 3, 4)). 

Finally, she cites a letter her counsel sent the defendant, with a copy to the Alabama

agent. (Doc. 4 at 2, ¶ 5 (citing id., Exhibit A)). 

The defendant’s evidence establishes that the defendant is a citizen only of

Colorado. The plaintiff’s submitted affidavits show only that certain former members of

the defendant wrongly assume they are still members because no one ever told them

differently, yet even they acknowledge that the defendant stopped selling policies in

Alabama in 2004 and that they have not paid premiums since then. The letters to the

plaintiff were written in 2003, when the defendant still sold policies in Alabama and so

still had members here. By informing the plaintiff that it would not renew her policy after

2004 because it “can no longer service your state,” the letters do not undermine but

affirmatively bolster the defendant’s jurisdictional argument. The letter from counsel is

Case 1:07-cv-00558-WS-M Document 13 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

immaterial, except perhaps in showing that the plaintiff recognizes the agent as such.

The defendant has easily met its burden of proving that the parties are of diverse

citizenship. Accordingly, the motion to remand is denied. 

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00558-WS-M Document 13 Filed 09/10/07 Page 3 of 3