Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MICHAEL B. SMITH, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO. __________
Plaintiff )
) ECF CASE
v. )
) Removed from:
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE ) Superior Court, State of Connecticut
COMPANY ) Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk
) at Stamford
) Docket No. FST-CV-15-6024167-S
Defendant. )
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter referred to as
“ACE”), by its attorneys LENNON MURPHY CAUFIELD & PHILLIPS, LLC, respectfully
files this Notice of Removal pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a) et seq. and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.
In support thereof ACE states the following:
1. This Notice of Removal is being made subject to the right of ACE to appear specially
and interpose any defense including but not limited to any defense made pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b).
2. On or about December 16, 2014, plaintiff MICHAEL B. SMITH commenced an
action against ACE by filing a Summons and Complaint in the Superior Court of State of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk, Civil Action No. FST-FA-15-6024167-S
(the “State Court Action”).
3. On or about December 22, 2013, ACE received a copy of the Summons and
Complaint filed in the State Court Action via regular mail. A true and correct copy of plaintiffs’
Summons and Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and, upon information and belief,
constitutes all process, pleadings, and orders filed in the State Court Action.
Case 3:15-cv-00044-SRU Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 7
2
4. The Complaint asserts that Mr. Smith submitted a claim for engine failure and
associated repairs in the amount of $90,000.00 to ACE and that ACE improperly denied
coverage for this claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of a marine policy of insurance. The
Complaint has asserted four (4) causes of action. In the first cause of action, plaintiff has alleged
ACE breached the terms and conditions of the involved marine policy of insurance.
5. In the second cause of action, plaintiff has alleged ACE has engaged in unfair
insurance claim settlement practices by violating Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 38a-816(6)m
et seq.
6. In the third cause of action, plaintiff has alleged that ACE has violated the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-110(b), et seq.
7. In the fourth cause of action, plaintiff has alleged ACE engaged in bad faith and is in
Breach of its covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In addition to $90,000 in money damages,
plaintiff has alleged it is entitled to treble damages, costs and attorney fees pursuant to the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act, CGS Sec. 42-110(b), et seq.
8. The district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and 1333 in that the matter in controversy—interpretation of a
marine insurance policy—is governed by settled principles within admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction. See Northern Assur. Co. of America v. Keefe, 845 F.Supp.2d 406, 412 (D.Mass.
2012); Lloyd’s of London v. Pagan-Sanchez, 539 F.3d 19, 24, fn. 5 (1st Cir. 2008) and Central
Int’l. Co. v. Kemper National Ins. Co., 202 F.3d 372, 372 (1st Cir. 2000) (“Suits on maritime
insurance policies are classic examples of matters within federal maritime jurisdiction.”).
9. As reflected in the exhibit attached to plaintiffs’ Complaint, there is a particular basis
for admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in that the matter in controversy involves an
interpretation and application of the ACE marine yacht insurance policy relating to the insured’s
Case 3:15-cv-00044-SRU Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 7
3
obligation to properly maintain the seaworthiness of its vessel. The interpretation of the terms
“wear and tear, gradual deterioration, weathering, neglect, lack of reasonable care or due
diligence in the maintenance,” “latent defect” and “corrosion” have particular relevance in the
maritime context in how they relate to the seaworthiness of a vessel operating in the navigable
waters of the United States. As such, since this dispute involves the interpretation of these
marine policy provisions, this dispute necessarily triggers maritime commerce for the purposes
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Id.; see also McAllister Brothers, Inc. v. Ocean Marine
Indemnity Co., 742 F.Supp. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (dispute involving marine insurance was within
the original admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts and could be removed from state court);
Monarch Industrial Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 276 F.Supp. 972 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
(suit against marine cargo insurer was properly removed to federal court); Wunderlich v.
Netherlands Ins. Co., 125 F.Supp. 877 (S.D.N.Y. 1954) (dispute over interpretation of marine
insurance policies was within original jurisdiction of federal court and savings to suitors clause
did not defeat removal).
10. Upon information and belief, there is a sufficient basis to also assert diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.
11. Plaintiff MICHAEL B. SMITH is an individual who resides in or around New
Canaan, Connecticut.
12. Defendant ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY is a Pennsylvania
corporation with a principal place of business located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA
19106.
13. Upon information and belief, all parties to this litigation are citizens of different states.
14. Plaintiff’s complaint does not specify a quantum for their costs and expenses caused by
Case 3:15-cv-00044-SRU Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 7
4
ACE’s alleged breach of the marine policy of insurance, but in paragraph nine (9) of the
Complaint, plaintiff has alleged damages in the amount of $90,000.00 sometime in August of
2012. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii), plaintiff appears to be seeking a money
judgment in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and State practice either does
not permit a demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount
demanded. Upon information and belief, if plaintiff is successful in establishing a breach of the
marine policy of insurance by ACE, which is denied, there is a reasonable probability that
plaintiff will be able to collect damages which exceed seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. See Providence Piers, LLC v. SMM New England,
Inc., 2013 WL 178183, *3-*4 (D.R.I. 2013); see also Reynolds v. World Couriers Ground, Inc.,
272 F.R.D. 28, 285-86 (D.Mass. 2011); Mut. Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. Houston Cas. Co.,
2010 WL 3608043, *3 (D.N.H. 2010) and Toutsey v. Avibank Mfg., Inc., 734 F.Supp.2d 230, 236
(D.Mass. 2010). In addition to money damages, plaintiff is further seeking treble damages, costs
and attorney fees pursuant to its allegation that ACE has violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, CGS Sec. 42-110(b), et seq.
15. In explaining its basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, ACE does not waive
anything in the filing of this Notice of Removal and specifically reserves its right to assert any
defense, limitation, exclusion, warranty, exception or argument as set forth in the subject policy
of insurance pursuant to federal maritime common law and Connecticut state law.
16. The District of Connecticut embraces the place where the State Court Action is
pending.
17. This Notice of Removal is being filed with this Court within thirty (30) days after
ACE first received, through service or otherwise, a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the
claim for relief upon which the State Court Action is based.
Case 3:15-cv-00044-SRU Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 7
5
18. Since the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, this Court has
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.
19. Removal of this case to federal court is also proper because there exists diversity of
citizenship between the parties and the amount is controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of
interest and costs.
20. ACE, upon filing of this Notice of Removal, will, as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1446(d), file a copy of the Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the Superior Court of State of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk, and will serve a copy of same upon plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, defendant ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY respectfully
submits that this Notice of Removal complies with the statutory requirements and respectfully
requests that the action now pending against it be removed from the Superior Court of State of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk to this Honorable Court, that this action
proceed in this Court as a properly removed action, and that defendant has such other and further
relief as justice requires.
Dated: January 12, 2015
Attorneys for Defendant
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
By Its Attorneys
______/s/ Patrick F. Lennon
Patrick F. Lennon (ct11950)
Anne C. LeVasseur (ct26757)
LENNON MURPHY CAUFIELD & PHILLIPS, LLC
Tide Mill Landing
2425 Post Road
Southport, CT 06890
(203) 256-8600
Case 3:15-cv-00044-SRU Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 5 of 7
6
______/s/ David Y. Loh
David Y. Loh
Pro hac vice anticipated
COZEN O’CONNOR
45 Broadway, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10006
(212) 509-9400
Case 3:15-cv-00044-SRU Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 6 of 7
7
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 12, 2015, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal was
served by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to Plaintiff’s Counsel as listed below:
Jason P. Gladstone, Esq.
Lampert, Toohey & Rucci, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL B. SMITH
46 Main Street
New Canaan, CT 06840
(203) 972-8100
Counsel for Plaintiff
By: /s/ Anne C. LeVasseur
Anne C. LeVasseur
Case 3:15-cv-00044-SRU Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 7 of 7
