A federal district court in Florida has dismissed a forced-placed insurance complaint after concluding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that over $75,000 was in controversy.

The Case

Adele Levine' estate alleged that, on or about April 25, 2003, America's Wholesale Lender originated a promissory note and mortgage in favor of Ms. Levine for the principal amount of $35,000 to acquire real property located at 911 North Hollybrook Drive, Pembroke Pines, Florida, 33025 (the “Property”). Bank of America was the servicer of the loan until October 1, 2012, and servicing thereafter was transferred to Seterus, Inc.

According to the estate, QBE First Insurance Agency and Seterus had entered into agreements under which Seterus' mortgage servicing activities relating to insurance were outsourced to QBE and that, under those agreements, QBE was permitted to impose force-placed insurance on mortgages serviced by Seterus.

The estate alleged that the specific agreement between QBE and Seterus was “designed to increase the amount of force-placed insurance that QBE place[d] and the related premium that its affiliates collect[ed]” by adopting “an expansive interpretation of the standard contracts used for mortgages originated under Fannie Mae's guidelines in Florida whereby they presume[d] that the borrower's insurance policy lapse[d] each year on its renewal date unless the borrower affirmatively demonstrate[d] that the policy was renewed.”

The estate asserted that, based on this presumption, Seterus and QBE obtained force-placed insurance and charged borrowers' accounts for the related premium even though this force-placed insurance was “both unnecessary and unauthorized because the borrower's voluntary coverage never lapsed.”

Borrowers sued QBE in a class action styled Edwards v. Seterus, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-23107, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A class action settlement in the case was approved, but Ms. Levine's estate opted out and filed an action against Seterus and QBE alleging claims for:

(1) Violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”) (Count I);

(2) Violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) (Count II); and

(3) Tortious interference (Count III).

Seterus moved to dismiss the estate's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000.

The estate asserted that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 based on allegations that the estate:

(1) Had suffered actual damages in the amount of $2,565, based on attorneys' fees “related to legal services rendered in connection with disputes concerning force-placed insurance;”

(2) Was entitled to statutory damages under the FCCPA;

(3) Was entitled to recover punitive damages; and

(4) Was entitled to recover prevailing party attorneys' fees.

For its part, Seterus argued that the estate had not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction, as the estate:

(1) Only alleged “actual damages in the amount of $2,565.00 for all of the three counts;”

(2) Only could recovery nominal statutory damages under the FCCPA; and

(3) Could not establish subject matter jurisdiction based on unspecified demands for punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The District Court's Decision

The district court granted the Seterus motion.

In its decision, the district court ruled that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 and that the estate's arguments about the amount in controversy were “frivolous.”

According to the district court, a plaintiff could not establish subject matter jurisdiction by alleging actual damages of under $4,000 simply by arguing that it could obtain punitive damages in excess of $70,000 based on FCCPA and common law tortious interference claims. This was especially true, the district court added, where the estate had provided “no evidence whatsoever to support its argument as to the amount of punitive damages.”

The district court concluded that the estate's contention that it could obtain substantial punitive damages and attorneys' fees was “nowhere near enough to meet its burden of showing subject matter jurisdiction.”

Accordingly, the district court dismissed the estate's action.

The case is Estate of Levine v. QBE First Ins. Agency, Inc., No.: 0:17-cv-60545-UU (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2017). Attorneys involved include: For The Estate of Adele Levine, Plaintiff: Jeffrey N. Golant, LEAD ATTORNEY, Coral Springs, FL; Sean X. Foo, The Law Offices of Jeffrey N. Golant, P.A., Coral Springs, FL. For QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant: Charles Andrew Tharp, LEAD ATTORNEY, Leiter, Belsky & Tharp, Fort Lauderdale, FL. For Seterus, Inc., A Foreign Corporation, Defendant: Jonathan Clayton Brown, LEAD ATTORNEY, Burr Forman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL.