Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00258/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00258-0/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK S. PARR, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0258-WS-C

 )

JOHN JACKSON, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Doc. 8). The

corporate defendant (“State Farm”) has filed a response, (Doc. 9), and the motion is ripe for

resolution. After carefully considering these and other relevant materials in the file, the Court

concludes that the motion is due to be denied.

State Farm removed this action from the Circuit Court of Hale County on the basis of

diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1). The complaint names State Farm and John Jackson as

defendants. Jackson, like the plaintiff, is an Alabama citizen. (Doc. 8 at 1). The plaintiff

“admits” that the only cause of action directed towards Jackson is one for fraud. (Id. at 5). The

only fraud claim asserted in the complaint alleges that “Defendants represented to Plaintiff that it

[sic] would pay all monies due under said contract” and did so “with the deceitful intention of

inducing Plaintiff to enter into said contract.” (Doc. 1, Exhibit B at 5, ¶¶ 18-19). That is, the

complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter the insurance

contract. The plaintiff, however, acknowledges that Jackson is merely “the insurance adjuster

who handled Plaintiff’s claims,” (Doc. 8 at 1, ¶ 5); that is, the plaintiff admits that Jackson had

nothing to do with the plaintiff or his contract until long after it was entered and so could not

possibly have fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter the contract.

“Fraudulent joinder is a judicially created doctrine that provides an exception to the

requirement of complete diversity.” Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287

(11th Cir. 1998). “If there is even a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint

states a cause of action against any one of the resident defendants, the federal court must find

Case 2:06-cv-00258-WS-C Document 10 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 2
1

Accord Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir. 1997)(issue is “whether the

facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint state even an arguable cause of action under Georgia

law”)(emphasis omitted). The plaintiff admits that this is the controlling standard. (Doc. 8 at 4). 

2

The Court is required to consider any undisputed evidence tending to negate the

plaintiff’s claim. Legg v. Wyeth, Inc., 428 F.3d 1317, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005). It must likewise

credit the plaintiff’s admissions in brief. 

-2-

that joinder was proper and remand the case to state court.” Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 F.2d

1433, 1440-41 (11th Cir. 1983). Conversely, if no such possibility exists, the joinder is

fraudulent as a matter of law. Id. at 1440.1 

The complaint, as clarified by the plaintiff’s admissions limiting his claim against

Jackson to one of fraud in the inducement of the contract, and limiting Jackson’s role to one of

post-contract claim adjustment, establishes that there is no possibility that a state court would

find the complaint to state a cause of action against Jackson.2

The plaintiff also weakly suggests that State Farm has not met its burden of showing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds

$75,000. (Doc. 8 at 5). On the contrary, State Farm has presented the plaintiff’s own repair

estimate, totaling some $94,757. (Doc. 1, Exhibit D). It has also presented the declarations

page, which reflects that the policy limits exceed $100,000. (Id., Exhibit C). Thus, the best

evidence is that the plaintiff seeks to recover over $75,000 in contract damages alone and the

contract allows recovery of that amount. Since the plaintiff elected to provide no evidence at all

concerning the amount in controversy, State Farm’s evidence constitutes a preponderance, all

favoring the conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff’s motion to remand is denied.

 

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00258-WS-C Document 10 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 2