SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs Cory P. Dix (hereinafter “C. Dix”) and Ruby E. Dix (hereinafter “R. Dix”) commenced this action against defendants Kathleen A. Peters, United Services Automobile Association (USAA), and Auto-Owners Insurance Company, claiming injuries arising out of a two-car automobile accident in which C. Dix and Peters were driving the involved vehicles. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Pending are defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 14, 18.) For the following reasons, USAA’s motion, brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), is granted, Peters’ and Auto-Owners’ motions are denied, and plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed. “A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Where jurisdictional facts are disputed, the court has the power and obligation to consider matters outside the pleadings, such as affidavits, documents, and testimony, to determine whether jurisdiction exists. See id.; APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir. 2003). “A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.” Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113 (citation omitted). “[W]hen the question to be considered is one involving the jurisdiction of a federal court, jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting it.” Shipping Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Drakos, 140 F.3d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs assert that this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332. (Compl. 9.) For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 and the dispute must be between “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; [or] (4) a foreign state…as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction “bears the burden of demonstrating that the grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete.” Herrick Co., Inc. v. SCS Commc’ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs allege that diversity of citizenship exists between plaintiffs, residents of Virginia, (Compl.
