The district court granted the motion to remand due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the insurer did not sufficiently establish that the amount in controversy was above $75,000. Caceres v. Scottsdale Inc. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209688 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2019).

    Hurricane Irma damaged plaintiffs' home. They notified Scottsdale, their insurer under their 2017 policy. Scottsdale issued a check for $10,975.00, after taking out the wind deductible of $5,853.68. Under the renewed 2019 policy. plaintiffs reported property damage to Scottsdale due to heavy rain and a roof collapse. Scottsdale issued a check for %7,975.04. 

    Plaintiffs then presented to Scottsdale a repair estimate for $91,862.51. The estimate listed September 10, 2017 as the date of loss, but also listed the claim submitted in 2019. The repair estimate covered the estimated damages for both claims.

    Plaintiffs then sued in state court for damages in excess of $15,000. Scottsdale removed the case to federal district court, alleging the amount in controversy was $75,033.83, based on the $91,862.51 repair estimate minus the $10,975 paid for the 2017 claim and the $5,853.68 wind deductible. Plaintiffs sought remand arguing: (1) Scottsdale could not use a pre-suit damage estimate as a basis for establishing the amount in controversy; and (2) even using the pre-suit damage estimate, Scottsdale failed to account for the second check paid to Plaintiffs, which would decrease the amount in controversy from $75,033,83 to $67,058.79. 

    The court first determined that a pre-suit estimate of repairs could be used to determine whether the suit had been properly removed. It was undisputed that Plaintiffs' total estimate of damages for both claims was $91,862.51. But the parties disagreed as to which check amounts should be subtracted from the $91,862.51 in determining the applicable amount in controversy. The court determined that the amount in controversy, which was based upon the combined $91,862.51 damage estimate, had to account for all payment and deductibles applied in connection with the 2017 and 2019 claims. Thus, the amount in controversy was $67,058.79.  

    Scottsdale also added Plaintiffs' anticipated attorneys' fees to establish the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy did not include highly speculative, prospective amounts of attorney's fees, but rather included only those fees accrued as of the time of removal. Further, Scottsdale presented no evidence to establish that Plaintiffs had accrued $7,941.21 in attorneys' fees as of the time of removal. Therefore, the court concluded it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.