Sara v. Talcott Resolution Life Insurance Company
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:21-cv-03094
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Sara v. Talcott Resolution Life Insurance Company, Judge Seibel denied remand because Prudential’s consent was timely and federal diversity jurisdiction existed.
Lloyd Sara, Talcott Resolution Life Insurance Company, and The Prudential Insurance Company of America; the case remained in federal court rather than returning to New York state court.
What happened
In Sara v. Talcott Resolution Life Insurance Company, Lloyd Sara asked the federal court to send his life-insurance dispute back to New York state court. He also requested reimbursement for the attorneys’ fees and costs of making that request.
Sara argued that Prudential consented to removal too late because service began when the New York Secretary of State received the papers on March 8, 2021. The court ruled that Prudential’s 30-day period began when its registered agent actually received the papers on April 12, making Prudential’s April 16 consent timely. The court also found that the parties were citizens of different states and that the amount at issue satisfied the federal requirement.
Judge Seibel denied Sara’s motion to remand and denied his request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The case therefore remained in federal court, and the court directed the parties to attend a scheduling conference.
The detailed version
- Sara v. Talcott Resolution Life Insurance Company · No. 7:21-cv-03094
- Cathy Seibel
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Lloyd Sara, an individual and New York resident, sued Talcott Resolution Life Insurance Company and The Prudential Insurance Company of America in New York state court. Talcott is a Connecticut corporation and successor to Hartford Life Insurance Company, which issued Sara’s life-insurance policy. Prudential is a New Jersey corporation responsible for administering Talcott’s life-insurance policies.
Sara alleged that, after he missed a policy payment in June 2019, the defendants tried to cancel the policy, failed to act on his application to reinstate it, and failed to give him a copy of the policy. He sought a declaration that the defendants’ conduct violated New York law.
Sara served Talcott on March 12, 2021. Talcott removed the case to federal court on April 9, 2021, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain cases between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Prudential did not join Talcott’s removal notice, but it filed a letter consenting to removal on April 16, 2021.
Sara had sent Prudential’s papers to the New York Secretary of State on March 8,
- The Secretary of State mailed the papers on April 5, and Prudential’s registered agent, CT Corporation, received them on April
- Sara argued that Prudential’s consent was late because its 30-day period began on March
- The defendants argued that the period began when Prudential’s registered agent received the papers on April 12.
Legal standard and analysis
Federal law generally requires all properly served defendants to join in or consent to removal. It also gives each defendant 30 days after receiving the initial pleading or summons to remove the case. Judge Seibel explained that service on a statutory agent, such as the New York Secretary of State, does not begin the federal removal clock when the defendant has not yet received the papers.
The court distinguished between two questions: whether Prudential had to consent to Talcott’s removal, and when Prudential had to give that consent. Once Prudential was served through the Secretary of State, it had to consent under the rule requiring unanimity among properly served defendants. But its 30-day period to consent was measured from its own receipt of the papers, not from delivery to the Secretary of State.
Because CT Corporation received the papers on April 12, Prudential’s April 16 consent was timely. The court also determined that the defendants established complete diversity: Sara was a New York citizen, while Talcott and Prudential were citizens of Connecticut and New Jersey. The court found that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met because the life-insurance policy had a $2 million limit and Sara’s lawsuit sought to determine the policy’s validity.
Ruling
Judge Seibel denied Sara’s motion to remand the case to state court. She also denied Sara’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the remand motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and the parties were ordered to attend a telephonic scheduling conference.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.