Florida judge uses unusually blunt language to deny motion to remand in insurance coverage case

That demand expired without acceptance on April 21, 2016.

The next day, April 22, 2016, Becker's counsel filed a civil remedy notice alleging bad faith on Progressive's part for its failure to pay the $100,000 policy limit, which counsel claimed was clearly warranted because Becker's damages were "far in excess of the minimal $100,000 policy limits."

Becker sued Progressive in a Florida state court on Sept. 8, 2016. In her complaint, Becker sought UIM benefits from Progressive (Count I), a declaratory judgment (Count II) and damages for bad faith, including the total amount of damages sustained by Becker in the accident, unrestricted by the $100,000 policy limit.

Those damages as alleged in paragraph 10 of the complaint included the following:

As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, [Ms. Becker] suffered bodily injury including a permanent injury to the body as a whole, pain and suffering of both a physical and mental nature, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, aggravation of an existing condition, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money and loss of ability to lead and enjoy a normal life. The losses are either permanent or continuing and [Ms. Becker] will suffer the losses in the future. [Ms. Becker's] motor vehicle was also damaged. 

Progressive timely removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Jan. 23, 2017.

On Feb. 7, 2017, Becker filed a motion to remand.

The district court's decision

The district court denied the motion.

In his decision, Judge Presnell discussed the facts of the case and stated:

This has become an all too familiar story: A case worth in excess of $100,000 when filed in state court becomes a case worth less than $75,000 when removed to federal court….

Judge Presnell then concluded:

Speaking of bad faith, [Ms. Becker's] counsel cannot, in good faith, contend that, under these circumstances, the value of this case does not meet the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.

The case is Becker v. Progressive American Ins. Co.

FC&S legal comment

Two other recent decisions by Judge Presnell in similar circumstances are worth noting.

First, in Yetter v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co. Judge Presnell denied a motion to remand after finding that it was "not a close call."

Then, in Jankovic v. Progressive American Ins. Co. Judge Presnell denied a motion to remand after stating that the plaintiff "had the temerity" to assert in her motion to remand that the amount in controversy did not meet the $75,000 jurisdiction threshold — an argument, the judge stated, that was "so patently without merit that further analysis [was] unwarranted."

FC&S Legal will monitor decisions by Judge Presnell for motions to remand in insurance coverage cases that he decides are "patently without merit" — or worse.

Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., is the director of FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, and the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc.