Insurance lawyers know that one of the more common claims arise from homeowners claims. Trying to keep the case in State or County Court is most favorable for the homeowner. However, doing that is more and more difficult. This is illustrated in the 2017, Northern District, Fort Worth Division opinion, William Mauldin v. Allstate Insurance, et al.
After damages were suffered to the residence of William, he made a claim against his homeowner’s policy with Allstate. A lawsuit was eventually filed against Allstate and the adjuster Mayella Gonzalez for violations of the Texas Insurance Code and the Texas DTPA.
Allstate and Gonzalez removed the case to Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a), alleging that the adjuster Gonzalez was improperly joined in an effort to defeat diversity. When improper joinder is alleged, the Court does a Rule 12(b)(6) type of analysis to determine whether there is a chance of recovery against Gonzalez.
Under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard the under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) is satisfied regarding the allegations against Gonzalez. In other words, the facts plead must allow the Court to infer that the Plaintiff’s right to relief is plausible.
In this case William alleged there were certain documents missing when Allstate caused the case to be removed to Federal Court and complained of numerous documents being filed by Allstate that were a “hodge-podge.” However, William does not identify or explain how any of this makes a difference. William alleges there needs to be some sort of consent for the removal but does not cite any authority for that proposition.
The amount of money in controversy as alleged by William is over $200,000 but less than $1 million, so the amount in controversy satisfies the standard for Federal Court.
This leaves the issue of whether Gonzalez was joined in the lawsuit for the purpose of defeating diversity or is there actual pleading against Gonzalez, individually, enough to satisfy that a judgment could be obtained against Gonzalez.
Here, William has done nothing more than make conclusory allegations against Gonzalez without any plausible facts to support them. He has made no attempt to spell out the who, what, when, where, and how of the purported fraud and other statutory violations. He does not even mention the individual defendants by name or identify who they are and what role they played. He only says that “in due course all of the Defendants became involved in this matter.” After a study of William’s pleadings, the Court concludes that Gonzalez was named as a defendant in this action for the purpose of attempting to defeat Federal Court jurisdiction.