Vanderloo v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company

Background

Evan Vanderloo sued Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company in Santa Clara County Superior Court. He asserted state-law claims for breach of contract, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and bad-faith denial of insurance coverage. The claims concerned injuries he sustained as a passenger in a friend's car and Allstate's handling of his underinsured-motorist claim under his friend's automobile policy.

Allstate removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Vanderloo did not dispute that diversity jurisdiction existed. Instead, he argued that removal was procedurally defective because Allstate filed its notice of removal more than 30 days after being served with the complaint.

Allstate was served with the complaint on June 14, 2023. It later served a request for a statement of damages, and Vanderloo provided that statement on August 30, 2023. The statement disclosed that he sought more than $6.2 million in damages. Allstate filed its notice of removal on September 27, 2023.

Issue

The issue was whether the complaint itself made it clear that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, which would have started the first 30-day removal period. If the complaint did not make that amount clear, a later document could start a second 30-day period when removability first became ascertainable.

Court's analysis

The court granted Allstate's request for judicial notice of the insurance policy and considered evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.

The court agreed with Allstate that the complaint's allegation that Vanderloo had submitted more than $200,019.71 in medical expenses did not establish the amount in controversy for the claims against Allstate. According to the court, those expenses arose from the accident itself, while the complaint sought damages for Allstate's alleged delay in paying benefits. Because Vanderloo had fully collected the policy limit, the court concluded that he was not entitled to additional damages stemming from the accident itself. The court therefore found that the $200,019.71 in medical expenses did not contribute to the amount in controversy.

The court also found that many other damages were described as amounts to be proven at trial or determined according to proof. Those allegations did not provide enough specificity to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Other damages, including continuing damages, punitive damages, financial hardship, and attorney's fees and costs, were unspecified and likewise did not obviously exceed the threshold.

Because none of the damages alleged in the complaint clearly raised the amount in controversy above $75,000, the court held that the first 30-day removal period was not triggered when Allstate received the complaint. Allstate removed the case within 30 days after receiving the Statement of Damages, so the removal was timely.

Disposition

The court denied Vanderloo's motion to remand. It also vacated the hearing scheduled for April 11, 2024. The opinion did not decide the merits of Vanderloo's underlying insurance claims.