Comer v. Shepard Insurance Group Inc.

Background

Joel Comer sued his insurance broker, Shepard Insurance Group, Inc. (SIG), alleging professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. He claimed SIG failed to obtain requested property-damage coverage for property in Bodega Bay, California. Comer alleged that a May 2019 windstorm caused a tree to damage a barn and vehicles on the property, and that he later learned the insurance policy provided only liability coverage for that property.

Comer filed the action in the Superior Court of California, County of Marin. SIG removed it to the federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Comer moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court held that SIG did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Comer’s complaint asserted state-law claims and did not allege a federal claim. SIG argued that federal fire mapping connected to a federal legislative scheme had prevented coverage, but it cited no federal statute or relevant authority. The court found that, at most, SIG identified a possible federal defense. A federal defense generally cannot support removal to federal court, so SIG failed to show that Comer’s right to relief necessarily depended on resolving a substantial federal-law question.

Diversity Jurisdiction

The parties agreed that complete diversity existed: the opinion states that Comer was a California citizen and SIG was a citizen of Connecticut. But diversity jurisdiction also requires more than $75,000 in dispute, excluding interest and costs.

Because the complaint did not specify a damages amount, the court reviewed the removal allegations and submitted evidence. Comer’s pre-suit demand claimed $65,000 in losses, and his later settlement offer was $54,154.07. Receipts for the relevant items totaled $54,154.57. The court rejected SIG’s attempt to include the value of property that Comer said was not damaged in the windstorm or was not part of this lawsuit. The court also noted that the Land Rover damage had been paid under a separate vehicle policy and was not at issue here. SIG did not show that attorney fees could be included in the amount in controversy, and interest and costs are excluded from the diversity threshold. The court therefore found that SIG failed to prove that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Attorney Fees and Disposition

Comer requested $1,787.50 in attorney fees for work related to the removal and remand motion. The court found SIG’s removal unsupported but concluded that it was not objectively unreasonable. The court therefore denied Comer’s request for attorney fees.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Comer’s motion to remand and directed the Clerk to remand the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Marin. The order terminated Docket Number 11. The opinion also states that the court did not reach Comer’s separate argument concerning SIG’s counsel’s admission to practice in the district because the court was remanding the case for lack of jurisdiction.