Insurance Law Hawaii

Finding Insurer's Declaratory Relief Action Raises Unsettled Questions of State Law, Case is Dismissed

    The federal district court for the District of Hawaii dismissed the insurer's action for declaratory relief because it raised issues that were unsettled by Hawaii courts. Association of Apartment Owners of Lahaina Residential Condominium, et al., No. 1-24-cv-00075-JAO-BMK, Order Granting AOAO's Motion to Dismiss (D. Haw. Aug. 29, 2024). 

    The case addressed whether a property damage exclusion barred coverage over an owner's claim that a condominium association and its property manager failed to obtain adequate insurance before the condominium's property was damaged by the Maui wildfire in August 2023. Great American filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Association and the property manage, Quam Properties Hawaiiana, Inc., in connection with a demand for mediation submitted to the Association and Quam on behalf of one of the owners. 

    The policy provided errors and omissions coverage to the Association and Quam. The policy excluded "any Claim made against any Insured . . . based upon, arising out of, relating to directly or indirectly resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving . . . damage to to destruction of any tangible property or the loss of use of any tangible property."

    On October 6, 2023, counsel for some of the owners submitted a demand for mediation to counsel for the Association. The demand claimed that the coverage for the Association was woefully inadequate. Mediation was demanded pursuant to Hawaii's condominium statute. 

    The Association tendered the demand to Great American. Coverage was denied because the demand was not a "Claim" under the policy and the property damage exclusion barred coverage.  Great American later agreed to reimburse the costs of defense incurred in connection with the mediation under a reservation of rights, which preserved the right to file this action. A mediation occurred, but no resolution was reached, no further mediation was scheduled, and no owner filed suit against the Association and Quam.

    Great American filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Association responded by filing a motion asking the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction and to dismiss the case because it raised unsettled question of state law.

    The court analyzed its right to exercise discretion to retain jurisdiction under the factors enumerated in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942). The court first considered whether there was a parallel state proceeding. The Association contended the mediation qualified as a parallel proceeding, particularly because it was expected to ripen into a state court lawsuit if the dispute could not be resolved. Great American objected that the Association had not cited any authority to support its contention that a non-binding mediation qualified as a parallel proceeding under Brillhart - and further that it was pure conjecture whether the owners would ever file a state court lawsuit. While the Association did not show that a presumption in favor of hearing this matter in state court existed, this did not prevent the court from ultimately concluding that state court still provided the better forum based on consideration of other factors. 

    First, insurance law was an area left to the states. Great American may be correct that because the exclusions "arising out of" and "in any way involving" language is interpreted broadly, the property damage exclusion applies. On the other hand, the Association may be correct that potential liability existed based on violations of the Hawaii condominium statutes and breach of the governing documents from the moment the property was underinsured. Because the potential liability (and harm to owners) existed separate and independent from the additional harm from the physical property damage caused by the fire, the property damage exclusion would not bar all coverage here.

    The court also found the parties' briefing on the question of concurrent or independent causation undeveloped, further risking federal court entanglement with this issue that could impact wildfire litigation in Hawaii more broadly. Because these coverage issues were not settled under Hawaii law and could have immediate reification on numerous other insurance coverage disputes related to the fire, it was one better resolved by Hawaii courts, without federal entanglement.

    There was also no compelling federal interest. Balancing these considerations (the existence of parallel proceedings, unsettled questions of state law, and federal interests), the court found that the first Brillhart factor weighed in favor of dismissal. 

    The second Brillhart factor, forum shopping, was neutral. Because diversity jurisdiction provided a basis to bring suit in federal court, Great American did not engage in forum shopping by filing suit here.

    Regarding the next Brillhart factor, duplicative litigation, the court found this factor tipped slightly in favor of dismissal. On the one hand, this finite dispute concerning Great American's obligations under the policy with regard to the demand would be entirely disposed of in either federal or state court. There was some risk, however of duplicative litigation and inconsistent results should the court opt to maintain jurisdiction over the case and the mediation ripened into a state court lawsuit. 

    Therefore, the court concluded that the Brillhart factors weighted in favor of remand because, even assuming no parallel state action or accepting that the risk of duplicative proceedings remained speculative at this point, the needless determination of state law factor weighed strongly in favor of dismissal. The Associatih's motion to dismiss was granted.

Hawaii Federal District Court Remands COVID-19 Business Interruption Case to State Court

    The federal district court for the district of Hawaii determined the insured's COVID-19 claims were novel and undecided by Hawaii state courts and remanded the case. Hawaii Theatre Center v. Am. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152836 (D. Haw. Aug. 25, 2022). 

    The Theatre sought coverage under its commercial property policy for business losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. American Insurance denied the claim. The Theatre filed suit in state court seeking a declaratory judgment on the coverage issues. American Insurance removed the case to federal court and the Theatre sought a remand because the case involved a determination of novel and important issues of insurance law not yet addressed by Hawaii courts. American Insurance countered that many federal courts had addressed similar issues and that no other relevant factors supported remand.

    The court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity, but had discretion in deciding whether to grant jurisdiction in a declaratory relief action based on diversity. The court's discretion was governed by the factors in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942). 

    In apply the factors, the court found there was no parallel state proceeding. However, the state law issues were novel and unsettled, having yet to be decided by Hawaii courts. If the court retained jurisdiction, it would be required to determine whether the Theatre's alleged losses and damages from COVID-19 constituted "direct physical loss of or damage to property" as contemplated by the policy. Nevertheless, American Insurance urged the court to retain jurisdiction and denied the issues because other district courts had done so when faced with similar arguments about the novelty of the COVID-19 pandemic. The cases cited by American Insurance, however, did not demonstrate that courts regularly rejected requests to remand cases addressing novel and unsettled issues related to the pandemic. Some of the courts exercised jurisdiction because non-declaratory relief claims were joined, and in other cases, the courts did not conduct a Brillhart analysis. 

   Finally, the court found there was no compelling federal interest, forum shopping or duplicative litigation in state court.

    Consequently, the court granted the Theatre's motion for remand.

    

    

    

Hawaii District Court's Dismissal of Insurance Related Declaratory Judgment Action Upheld by Ninth Circuit

    While a district court can decline to exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action, here the declaratory claims were joined with an independent monetary claim. The insured filed a counterclaim for monetary relief, but only if the court first exercised jurisdiction over the insurer's claim for declaratory judgment. Could the district court still decline jurisdiction? Argonaut Ins. Co. v. St. Francis Med. Cir., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34218 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2021).

    The underlying state action involved former students of Kamehameha Schools alleging sexual abuse by a doctor from the late 1950s through the early 1980s. Because the doctor had practiced at St Francis Medical Center, Kamehameha Schools filed crossclaims against St. Francis, which sent the crossclaims to its insurer, Argonaut. The insurer agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. 

    Argonaut the filed for declaratory judgment in federal court to determine what rights and duties Argonaut owed St. Francis. In its answer, St. Francis asserted the district court should decline jurisdiction because the claim presented solely issues of state law during the pendency of parallel proceedings in state court. St. Francis also filed two counterclaims, the first mirroring Argonaut's declaratory judgment requests for relief and the second seeking monetary relief because Argonaut breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. St. Francis asserted its counterclaims, however, only if the court asserted jurisdiction over Argonaut's declaratory relief claim. 

    The district court agreed with St. Francis, holding that notwithstanding get monetary counterclaim, it had discretionary jurisdiction over Argonaut's declaratory claims and the relevant facts supported declining jurisdiction. Argonaut appealed.

    The Ninth Circuit held that St. Francis did not waive its threshold defense by not raising it in a motion. Here, St. Francis raised its threshold defense by answer. Such defenses were preserved even if coupled with counterclaims. 

    The Ninth Circuit went on to hold that the district court properly evaluated factors under Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942) and Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir 1998) in declining jurisdiction. The district court noted: (1) there was related litigation in state court involving St Francis; (2) insurance law was an area regulated by the states; (3) there was no compelling federal interest in the case; (4) dismissing this case would discourage forum shopping; (5) dismissal would avoid duplicative litigation on any overlapping issues; (6) proceeding with this case in federal court would entangle the state and federal court systems; (7) state court would be as convenient a forum as federal court for this case. 

    Accordingly, the district court properly held that conditionally pled counterclaims did not trigger mandatory jurisdiction over declaratory claims. 

Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Action

    The Federal District Court for the District of Hawaii remanded the coverage case to state court after applying the Brillhart and Dizol factors. HK Holdings, LLC v. Avemco Ins. Co., 2021 U.S Dist. LEXIS 174039 (D. Haw. Sept. 14, 2021). 

    HK Holding was a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Hawaii. It owned and operated the Jade Dynasty Seafood Restaurant. Defendant Avemco Insurance Company was organized and existed under the laws of the State of Maryland. HK Holding held a Employment Practice Liability Insurance Policy issued by Avemco. The policy covered loss for a "Wrongful Employment Act."

    HK Holdings was sued in a class action in state court. The complaint alleged that gratuity charges applied by the restaurant were not distributed 100% to the non-management employees as tip income. The class action suit alleged several violations of various state statutes.

    Avemco denied coverage asserting that the complaint did not allege a "Wrongful Employment Act" and that the damages sought by the employees did not constitute a "Loss" as defined in the Policy. 

    HK Holdings filed suit in state court against Avemco, seeking a declaratory judgment that Avemco had a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify HK Holdings against the class action suit. Avemco removed the compliant to federal district court. HK Holdings filed a Motion to Remand, urging the federal court to avoid needless determinations of Hawaii state insurance law and to avoid duplicative litigation with the on-going class action suit in state court.

    The federal court noted it had discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to exercise its jurisdiction when the complaint was limited to declaratory relief. The court analysed the three factors set forth in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942) in evaluating whether to decline jurisdiction over a complaint limited to declaratory relief. 

    The court first determined that there were parallel state court proceedings. Both the underlying class action suit and the Declaratory Judgment Complaint involved overlapping factual circumstances. Both cases required factual determinations as to the employment practices of HK Holdings. The existence of the parallel state court proceedings weighed strongly in favor of the court exercising its discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction. 

    The court also noted that insurance law was regulated by the states. The class action suit asserted violations of several Hawaii state statutes. This factor supported a finding that the federal proceeding could involve the federal court making unnecessary determinations of state law. 

    The court found no compelling federal interest in the case. The court, however, found the forum shopping prong neutral. There was no evidence that the case was brought merely for procedural fencing and there was no evidence that Avemco's removal was reactionary or for an improper purpose.

    There was concern over duplicative litigation. Facual issues in the underling class action suit paralleled the factual issues that had to be resolved in the insurance coverage case. The central factual question in the coverage dispute concerned whether HK Holdings engaged in a Wrongful Employment Practice. The class action suit involved overlapping issues with respect to HK Holdings and its employment practices. Therefore, the Brillhart facts favored remanding the proceedings.

    Turning to the factors utilized by the Ninth Circuit in Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1998), the court found that the declaratory action in federal court would not settle all aspects of the controversy. Second, although the declaratory judgment action would serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal relationship between HK Holdings and Avemco, it would not serve to streamline the underlying class action proceedings. The two lawsuits had overlapping issues and maintaining actions in separate forums would entangle the state and federal court systems. Third, the state court forum would provide as convenient of a forum as the federal district court would and would avoid duplicative litigation. Finally, there were procedural considerations of maintaining suits in two separate forums that favored remanding proceedings.

    Both the Brillhart and Dizol factors favored that the federal court exercise its discretion to remand proceedings. 

Federal Court Remands COVID-19 Case Presenting Novel and Important Issues of State Insurance Law

    The federal district court exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act, declining jurisdiction over a case presenting claims arising from COVID-19. Marc Daniel Hospitality, LLC v. AmGuard Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191956 (D. N.J. Oct 16, 2020).

    Plaintiff operated an upscale sit-down restaurant and whiskey bar offering a full menu. In March 2020, state and local orders limited the scope and hours of operations of all restaurants in the state due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Subsequent orders mandated that New Jersey residents remain at home except under certain exceptions. Plaintiff had to temporarily close its restaurant.

    Plaintiff sued the insurer in state court seeking a declaratory judgment as to plaintiff's rights under the policy. The insurer removed to federal district court and plaintiff sought to remand. Plaintiff urged the court to decline jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act because the matter presented a substantial unprecedented matter of concern for New Jersey, its businesses, and the insurance industry in New Jersey. 

    The court agreed. Federal courts were to hesitate in hearing a declaratory judgment action where it was restricted to issues of state law. The complaint here presented novel and important issues of state insurance law. A key issue was whether business losses were caused by the presence of the COVID-19 virus or, rather, caused by the Executive Orders which prompted the closure of plaintiff's restaurant. 

    Further, the same issues were already pending in state court. A significant number of cases related to insurance coverage for business interruption based on COVID-19 closures were pending across the country, including in New Jersey state courts. As the cases remained pending, the law on the issues remained unsettled. 

    Therefore, the case was remanded to state court. 

Finding Adjustor Properly Joined, Court Orders Remand of COVID-19 Claim

    The federal district court found there was no diversity based upon joinder of the adjustor and granted the insured's motion for remand. Jada Rest. Grp., LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163296 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2020).

    Plaintiff owned several restaurants. It held a business insurance policy with Acadia. When state and local authorities limited Plaintiff's business to take-out or delivery service due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff sustained heavy income losses. 

    Plaintiff submitted a claim for business interruption to Acadia. Defendant Christopher Michels, an insurance adjuster, was retained by Acadia to investigate the claim. After Michels completed the investigation, Acadia denied the claim. Acadia relied on the policy's virus exclusion and the absence of direct physical loss of or damage to the property.

    Plaintiff sued in state court. it alleged that Defendant Michels conducted an outcome-oriented investigation of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff asserted that Michels made no requests for documentation or information relating to the claim and denied the claim so quickly that he cold not have conducted a proper investigation. Acadia sent plaintiffs a notice under the Texas Insurance Code that Acadia was accepting any potential liability for Defendant Michel.

    Acadia removed to federal district court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved for remand, arguing that both Plaintiff and Defendant Michels were Texas citizens. Acadia argued that Michels was improperly joined because of its election to accept liability on Michels' behalf. 

    The court found that the Texas Insurance Code provision that allowed an insurer to accept potential liability for an adjustor applied only to "forces of nature." Government-mandated business closures were not "forces of nature." Further, a virus was not a "force of nature" for the purposes of the statute. 

    Further, Plaintiff adequately pled a claim against Defendant Michels. Plaintiff alleged his investigation was done so quickly that it was out-come oriented. Michels erroneously denied coverage based upon the policy's virus exclusion when none o the restaurants had evidence of viral contamination. Moreover, Plaintiff alleged misconduct on the part of Defendant Michel that was separate and apart from Acadia. Whereas Plaintiff's claims against Acadia sounded primarily in breach of contract, the claims against Defendant Michel rested on alleged violation of the Texas Insurance Code.

    Therefore, Plaintiff pled specific causes of action against Defendant Michels and he was not improperly joined. The case was remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Court Denies Remand of COVID-19 Case

    The federal district court rejected a challenge to its diversity jurisdiction and rejected the insured's attempt to remand the COVID-19 claims back to state court. Vandelay Hospitality Group LP v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149196 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2020).

    Vandelay purchased a commercial property policy from Cincinnati through Swingle Collins, its registered broker, and its employee, Baron Cass. The policy was "all risk" and purported to insure three of Vandelay's restaurants for, amoung other things, direct physical loss and loss incurred due to business interruptions.

    Vandelay had to close its restaurants in March 2020 when state and local officials issued emergency orders limiting dine-in restaurants to take-out service due to COVID-19. Vandelay closed its three restaurants and submitted a claim to Cincinnati. The claim was denied. Vandelay sued Cincinnati and Cass in state court for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment that the policy covered the claimed losses. Vandelay amended its petition to join Swingle Collins.

    Cincinnati removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction, contending Cass and Swingle Collins were fraudulently joined. Cincinnati was an Ohio corporation. Vandelay, Cass and Swingle Collins were all citizens of Texas.

    A declaratory judgment was appropriate only if (1) a justiciable controversy existed and (2) the controversy would be resolved by the declaration sought. Duplicative relief could not be sought in a declaratory judgment action.

    Vandelay sought a declaration that the forced closures of its restaurants denied access to the premises and was covered under the policy. Further, Vandelay sustained "direct physical loss to property" because of COVID-19 and the related state and local orders. Finally, Vandelay wanted to establish that the lost business income it sustained was due to the necessary suspension of operations.

    Each of the declarations sought would be resolved in the context of Vandelay's breach of contract action. Therefore, the declaratory relief sought would add nothing to the action in that the request mirrored Vandelay's claims and duplicated its own claim for breach of contract.  Because the court's adjudication of the breach of contract claim would determine whether there was coverage and thereby determine all parties' rights under the policy and any claims arising out of its formation, the declaratory judgment claims were duplicative and unavailable as a matter of law. 

    Consequently, defendants met their burden of demonstrating that there was no reasonable basis for predicting that Vandelay might be entitled to a declaratory judgment in state court. There was no reasonable basis for recovery against Swingle Collins and Cass, so Vandelay's motion for remand was denied. 

Remand Denied for COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    The district court refused to remand plaintiff's claim for business losses due to COVID-19 shut down orders. Mark's Engine Co. No. 28 Restaurant, LLC v. Traveler's Indem. Co. of Conn., 2020 US. District. LEXIS 132841 (C.D. Calif. July 27, 2020). 

    Plaintiff restaurant sued Traveler's in state court. Los Angele Mayor Eric Garcetti was also named as a defendant for his part in issuing the shut down orders. An Executive Order issued on March 15, 2020 directed all non-essential businesses to close. Plaintiff argued that this triggered its coverage because plaintiff was forced to close by order of Civil Authority. Further, the denial of coverage would not have occurred absent the mayor's order, the propriety of which was an significant issue that allegedly had to be resolved.

    Travelers removed the state proceeding to federal court. Travelers argued removal was proper because the only non-diverse defendant, the mayor, was fraudulently joined. Plaintiff moved to remand, contending the mayor was not fraudulently joined. 

    The court found that Travelers met its burden to show that the mayor was fraudulently joined. The cased turned on a contract between plaintiff and Travelers, and the mayor was not a party to the contract. Because the mayor, the only non-diverse defendant, was fraudulently joined, complete diversity of citizenship among the parties was present. The motion for remand was denied. 

Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    The federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020). 

    Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed.

    Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual.

    Navigators filed in federal court for declaratory judgment against Chriso and Mountain F, contending there was no duty to defend or to indemnify because of the PSE Exclusion. Navigators argued that the trimming involved mental or intellectual skill and the labor involved was increasingly secondary with technological advances. 

    A couple of months later, Mountain F filed suit in state court against Chriso, Navigators and Chriso's primary carriers. The suit alleged that Chriso failed to defend and indemnify Mountain F. Further Navigators failed to defend Mountain F as an additional insured under Chriso's policy. The suit alleged that the PSE Exclusion did not apply because tree cutting and tree felling were not similar to any of the 12 examples of "professional services" listed in the policy. 

    Navigators filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal action. Mountain F followed with a motion to stay or, in the alternative, to dismiss, in light of the state court action. The court stayed Navigator's motion for summary judgment pending resolution of the motion for stay 

    The court considered the factors in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491 (1942) and Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002). First, the court found this case was duplicative because the same issues involving the same parties were present in the state court case. There would be a needless determination of state law if jurisdiction was retained because two courts would apply the same settled principles to the same issues. Forum shopping was not an issue as Navigators had filed in federal court first.

    All aspects of the controversy could be resolved in the federal case, favoring retaining litigation. Retaining jurisdiction would clarify whether the PSE Exclusion applied, but the same analysis would apply to the state case. Although res judicata might apply depending on which case was first resolved, this factor weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction. There was no evidence that the federal case would be entangled with the state case, so this factor also weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction. Finally, neither party would be inconvenienced by the federal court retaining jurisdiction.

    While some factors weighed in favor of the federal court retaining jurisdiction, the court did not find that the factors were so weighty to overcome the presumption against retaining jurisdiction. Because the same issues and same parties were proceeding in a parallel state court case, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action. Navigators' case was therefore dismissed. 

COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

    The federal district court remanded to state court a loss of rent claim because the amount in controversy requirement was not met. Geragos & Geragos Fine Arts Bldg., LLC v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2020 U.S Dist. LEXIS 127427 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2020). 

    Geragos suffered loss of rental income due to the COVID-19 tenant relief measures implemented in Los Angeles. The tenant relief orders would remain in effect for the duration of the emergency period, the end date of which was not presently set. 

    Geragos submitted a claim for loss of rental income to Travelers. When the claim was denied, Geragos sued in state court. Travelers removed to federal district court. Geragos moved to remand the case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

    Travelers asserted that Geragos rental income of $6,800per month could serve as a basis for calculating the amount of controversy. The court disagreed that Geragos' monthly rental income represented a colorable source of damages. The Los Angeles ordinance provided that "nothing in this article eliminates any obligation to pay lawfully charged rent." The ordinance also provided, however, that no owner could charge interest or late fees on rent not paid due to the ordinance. Even if policy benefits were triggered by the ordinances at issue, it was not clear that Geragos would ultimately be damaged in an amount greater than the lost interest or late fees on delinquent rents. Therefore, the argument for the amount in controversy was too speculative to overcome the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction given the highly unpredictable nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

    Because Travelers failed to meet its burden to establish the requisite amount in controversy, the court granted Geragos' motion to remand.