Mr. Sydras sent Scottsdale a demand letter that stated, “Our initial global demand is $111,000, inclusive of all fees and costs but exclusive of any pending AOBs. Please let us know if you have a counter offer.”

Thereafter, Mr. Sydras asked a Florida state court to declare that there was coverage under his policy.

Scottsdale removed the action to a federal district court, which considered sua sponte whether to remand to state court.

In support of removal, Scottsdale asserted that Mr. Sydras was a Florida resident and that Scottsdale was an Ohio company with its principal place of business in Ohio. Scottsdale also asserted that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because of the letter Mr. Sydras sent to Scottsdale demanding $111,000. Accordingly, Scottsdale argued that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 were met in this case and that the district court had diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

The District Court's Decision

The court remanded the case to a Florida state court.

In its decision, the court explained that general settlement demands provided “only marginal evidence of the amount in controversy” because they usually were “nothing more than posturing by plaintiffs['] counsel for settlement purposes” and could “not be considered a reliable indicator of the damages sought by the plaintiff.”

On the other hand, the court added, settlement offers providing “specific information” to support the plaintiff's claim for damages were entitled to more weight.

In this case, the court noted, Mr. Sydras sought a declaratory judgment in connection with a loss “believed, for jurisdictional purposes of this court, to have a value in excess of $15,000.” The court pointed out that Mr. Sydras' petition failed to allege facts that suggested actual damages exceeded $15,000. “Absent any mention of the extent of physical loss or the costs of labor and materials to repair alleged property damage,” the court found, the extent of damages was “unclear.”

Moreover, the court said, Mr. Sydras' demand letter failed to itemize the costs of repairs, materials, and labor but, instead, proposed a “blanket figure” without noting facts demonstrating the proposed sum was “a reliable estimate of actual damages.”

The court ruled that because the demand letter explicitly invited settlement and proposed a blanket sum without context, it more closely resembled “settlement posturing” than an “honest assessment of damages.” Accordingly, the court concluded that Scottsdale had not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that it lacked jurisdiction.

The case is Sydras v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 19-60401-CIV-WILLIAMS (S.D. Fla. July 3, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Esdras Sydras, Plaintiff: Stefano Mittone, LEAD ATTORNEY, Louis Law Group, Miramar, FL; Joseph Samuel Wald, Blaxberg, Grayson, Kukoff, P.A., Miami, FL; Pierre Andre Louis, Duboff Law Firm, North Miami, FL. For Scottsdale Insurance Company, Defendant: Andrew P. Rock, Mindy Anne McLester, The Rock Law Group, P.A., Maitland, FL.