Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00967/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00967-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

CAROL TEDDER and )

CHRIS TEDDER, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv967-MHT

) (WO) 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY and EMERSON SCOTT )

LUSANE, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the court is plaintiffs Carol Tedder and

Chris Tedder’s motion to remand this lawsuit back to

state court. 

In state court, plaintiff Carol Tedder asserted

claims that she suffered bodily injury, and plaintiff

Chris Tedder asserted a claim for loss of consortium, all

the claims being the result of an automobile accident

between Carol Tedder and defendant Emerson Scott Lusane.

The Tedders rested their claims on allegations of breach

of an insurance contract and bad faith refusal to pay

Case 3:06-cv-00967-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 4
2

insurance benefits arising out of uninsured-andunderinsured motorist coverage with defendant Liberty

Mutual Insurance Company, and allegations of negligence

and wantonness against Lusane. Liberty Mutual then

removed this lawsuit to this court based on diversity-ofcitizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. 

A removing defendant has the burden of proving that

the more-than-$ 75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement

for diversity jurisdiction is met. Leonard v. Enterprise

Rent-a-Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). “A

conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that the

jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth

the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is

insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden.” Williams

v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319-20 (11th

Cir. 2001). 

Here, the conclusory allegation in the notice of

removal--that “The plaintiff (sic) is seeking damages for

personal injury, past and future medical costs, lost

Case 3:06-cv-00967-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 4
3

wages, mental anguish and stress as well as $ 74,000 in

damages for bad faith, breach of contract and loss of

consortium”--is therefore insufficient to satisfy this

burden by a preponderance of evidence. Liberty Mutual

fails to explain, in its removal notice, how all the

items of damage total more than $ 75,000, and, more

pertinently, it fails to explain how the “damages for

personal injury, past and future medical costs, lost

wages, mental anguish and stress” apparently sought in

the amended complaint are in addition to the “$ 74,000 in

damages for bad faith, breach of contract and loss of

consortium” apparently sought in the original complaint.

It appears from the original complaint and the later

amended complaint that all these items of damage are

encompassed completely in each complaint, and the Tedders

make clear in their original complaint that they are

seeking no more than $ 74,000 in compensatory and

punitive damages.

Case 3:06-cv-00967-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 4
Accordingly, because this court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court that the plaintiffs Carol Tedder and Chris

Tedder’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 3) is granted, and

that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this cause is

remanded to the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama.

It is further ORDERED that all other pending motions

are left for disposition by the state court after remand.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take

appropriate steps to effect the remand.

DONE, this the 20th day of November, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00967-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 4