Voves v. American Economy Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION GARY VOVES § § v. § CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-441-SDJ § AMERICAN ECONOMY § INSURANCE COMPANY § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Voves’s Corrected Motion to Remand. (Dkt. #10). Defendant American Economy Insurance Company (“AEIC”) filed a response in opposition. (Dkt. #11). Having considered the motion, AEIC’s response, the record, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the remand motion should be denied. I. BACKGROUND Voves holds a property insurance policy issued by AEIC. (Dkt. #3 ¶ 7). Following a storm that damaged his property, Voves filed a claim with AEIC. (Dkt. #3 ¶ 8 ). Voves alleges that AEIC “conducted a substandard investigation and inspection of the property,” “undervalued the damages observed during the inspection,” and ultimately “denied and/or underpaid the claim.” (Dkt. #3 ¶ 9–11). After this denial, Voves sent AEIC a pre-suit notice letter, alleging $33,000 in unpaid policy benefits. (Dkt. #1-4 at 2–3). A few months later, Voves sued AEIC in Texas state court, asserting claims for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. (Dkt. #3 ¶ 16–24). Voves did not include a specific dollar amount for actual damages in his state-court petition; he did, however, demand “treble damages pursuant to Texas Insurance Code § 541.152(a)–(b).” (Dkt. #3 ¶ 24). AEIC then removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. #1 ¶ 4–9). Voves now moves to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is not met. (Dkt. #10 at 2–4). In response, AEIC proposes a simple math equation: $33,000 (the actual damages figure from Voves’s pre-suit notice letter), multiplied by three (per the treble damages demand in Voves’s petition), equals $99,000. (Dkt. #11 at 1–2). Thus, AEIC argues, the amount in controversy here exceeds $75,000, and this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. II. LEGAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a), the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Where the amount in controversy is disputed because a specific damages number is not alleged in the complaint, the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction “must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ‘the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount,’ and may rely on ‘summary judgment-type evidence’ to do so.” 1400 FM 1417 LLC v. Certainteed Corp., No. 4:21-CV-00847, 2022 WL 906192 , at *7 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2022) (quoting St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998)). In a removed case, the removing defendant bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists, and “[a]ny ambiguities are construed against removal and in favor of remand to state court.” Mumfrey v. CVS Pharm., Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)). III. DISCUSSION AEIC has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as required to establish diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). AEIC attaches Voves’s pre-suit notice letter to its Notice of Removal, in which Voves claims $33,000 in unpaid policy benefits. (Dkt. #1-4 at 3). Voves concedes that this figure represents his actual damages. (Dkt. #10 at 3). AEIC reasons that because Voves is seeking treble damages, for purposes of the amount in controversy requirement, the $33,000 figure becomes $99,000, exceeding the amount in controversy threshold. The Court agrees. The Fifth Circuit has held that a plaintiff’s pre-removal demand letter, coupled with a statutory multiplier, may serve as sufficient summary judgment-type evidence to establish the amount in controversy requirement. Chavez v. State Farm Lloyds, 746 F.App’x 337, 341 (5th Cir. 2018) (holding that defendant satisfied amount in controversy requirement where plaintiff’s demand letter for $40,776.44 could double when coupled with exemplary damages permitted under Texas law), abrogated on other grounds by Agredano v. State Farm Lloyds, 975 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2020). District courts, including this one, have similarly applied this principle. Nguyen v. AmGuard Ins. Co., No. 4:22-CV-175-SDJ, 2022 WL 17477545 , at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2022) (finding amount in controversy requirement met where plaintiff’s pre-removal demand letter to defendant insurance company sought $36,104.56 in damages, which when trebled exceeded $75,000); SOLARES v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., No. 5:19-CV-00027, 2019 WL 3253072 , at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 11, 2019) (“In the insurance context, courts have asserted federal jurisdiction where the insurer produced a pre-suit demand letter plainly showing damages near or in excess of $75,000.”); Sam v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. H-10-1034, 2010 WL 2471905 , at *5 (S.D. Tex. June 16, 2010) (finding amount in controversy requirement met where plaintiff’s pre-removal demand letter to defendant insurance company sought $44,500 in damages, which when trebled exceeded $75,000); Molina v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.P., 535 F.Supp.2d 805, 808 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (holding that plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter to defendant insurance company is proper evidence used to determine the amount in controversy). Here, the Court finds that Voves’s pre-suit notice letter alleges $33,000 in unpaid policy benefits. (Dkt. #1-4 at 3). As Voves is seeking treble damages, his claim necessarily involves an amount in controversy rising to at least $99,000, exclusive of interest and costs, meeting Section 1332’s amount in controversy requirement. Because AEIC has also established that the parties are completely diverse, (Dkt. #1 ¶ 5 –7), the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, and Voves’s remand motion must be denied. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Corrected Motion to Remand, (Dkt. #10), is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2025. SEAN D. JORDAN J UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE