This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.

An insured seeking no more than $20,000 in medical benefits from her auto insurer could not reasonably pay $55,000 in attorney fees, a magistrate judge in Pennsylvania has opined.

The Case

Sandra Benko sued Allstate Insurance Co. for breach of contract by filing a complaint in a Pennsylvania state court.

Allstate removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, predicating subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. In its notice of removal, Allstate pleaded a “good faith belief” that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 limit of 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).

The court ordered Allstate to show cause as to why the case should not be remanded due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Allstate responded that Benko's claims for “medical bills, interest at 12 percent, costs of suit and attorney's fees,” were sufficient to support its contention that the case had been properly removed.

The Court's Decision

The court, in an opinion by a magistrate judge, recommended that the matter be remanded to state court.

The court explained that the amount in controversy generally is decided from the face of the complaint itself. The amount in controversy is “not measured by the low end of an open-ended claim, but rather by a reasonable reading of the value of the rights being litigated,” the court added.

It then stated that it was “clear” that the amount in controversy had to be calculated “exclusive of interests and costs” under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).

The court added that, with respect to Benko's medical bills, Allstate's insurance policy limited recovery for medical expenses to $10,000. The court observed that even if the applicable coverage were “stacked,” $20,000 fell “woefully short of the jurisdictional limit.”

Finally, the court considered whether the $55,000 deficiency could be made up in attorney fees. It pointed out that, in Suber v. Chrysler, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit instructed that “attorney's fees are necessarily part of the amount in controversy if such fees are available to successful plaintiffs under the statutory cause of action.”

Under Pennsylvania law, 75 Pa.C.S. 1798(b), the court continued, in the event an insurer was found to have acted with no reasonable foundation in refusing to pay motor vehicle liability insurance first-party benefits when due, “the insurer shall pay, in addition to the benefits owed and the interest thereon, a reasonable attorney fee based upon actual time expended.”

“Put simply,” the court then stated, $55,000 did “not appear to be a reasonable fee in a simple breach of contract case such as this, particularly where [Benko had] not asserted a bad faith claim.”

Concluding that Allstate had not met its burden of establishing that the applicable policy coverage plus reasonable attorney fees met or exceeded the jurisdictional requirement of $75,000, the court recommended that the case be remanded to state court.

The case is Benko v. Allstate Insurance.

Steven A. Meyerowitz is the director of FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, and the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc. As FC&S legal director, Meyerowitz, a member of the team that conceptualized FC&S Legal, provides daily analysis and commentary on the most significant insurance coverage law decisions from courts across the country and news regarding legislative and regulatory developments. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Meyerowitz was an attorney at a prominent Wall Street law firm before founding Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company.