CSAA General Insurance Company v. Mallett

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 9, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00440
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11 * * *

12 CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00440-LRH-CSD

13 Plaintiff, ORDER

14 v.

15 MARILEE MALLETT, an individual, RAYMOND MALLETT, an individual, and 16 ALISHA FENNELLY, an individual,

17 Defendants.

18 19 Plaintiff CSAA General Insurance Company (“CSAA”) filed its Complaint for Declaratory 20 Judgment and Other Relief on October 5, 2022. ECF No. 1. On October 11, 2022, a copy of the 21 Complaint and Summons were served upon Defendants Marilee Mallett and Raymond Mallett. 22 ECF Nos. 3, 4. Defendant Alisha Fennelly was served on November 11, 2022. ECF No. 6. 23 The Complaint involves an incident that occurred on November 15, 2017, between 24 Defendant Marilee Mallett who was operating a Chevrolet Equinox that allegedly collided with 25 the rear of a vehicle being operated by Defendant Alisha Fennelly. ECF No. 1, 4:13-16. The 26 Chevrolet Equinox was allegedly owned by Ms. Mallett’s mother and insured with Allstate 27 Insurance (Id. at 4:16-19), but regularly and consistently driven by Ms. Mallett (Id. at 4:20-22). 1 Nevada captioned Alisha Fennelly v. Marilee Hunt-Mallett, Case No. CV19-02205 alleging that 2 as a result of the accident Ms. Fennelly was injured and received treatment. Id. at 4:22-27. 3 Marilee Mallett and Raymond Mallett were insureds of CSAA at all times relative to the 4 Complaint. Id. at 2:18-22. Marilee Mallett has made a claim on the Automobile liability insurance 5 policy that CSAA provided. Id. at 5:4-7. “The policy at issue has liability limits of $15,000.00 per 6 each occurrence.” Id. at 3:11-17. CSAA alleges that this vehicle does not qualify as a covered 7 vehicle or non-owned vehicle under Ms. Mallett’s automobile policy. Id. at 6:3-9. 8 CSAA seeks, among other things, declaratory relief from this Court to determine and 9 adjudicate the rights, duties and responsibilities of CSAA and the named Defendants with respect 10 to the matters set forth in its Complaint, that there is no coverage for the incident complained in 11 Alisha Fennelly v. Marilee Hunt-Mallett, Second Judicial District Court, Case No. CV19-02205 12 under CSAA’s applicable policies, and that there is no coverage owed to Marilee Mallett or 13 Raymond Mallett under their policy. Id. at 8:1-8. 14 When a plaintiff’s lawsuit, as here, is based on diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the 15 burden of proving that the parties are of diverse citizenship and that the amount in controversy 16 exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is undisputed that the 17 parties in this case are of diverse citizenship. ECF No. 1, 1:23-2:18. Thus, the only diversity 18 jurisdiction question is whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 19 Generally, the amount in controversy in a liability coverage case is “the value of the 20 underlying potential tort action.” Budget Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Higashiguchi, 109 F.3d 1471, 1473 21 (9th Cir. 1997). When either (1) “the validity of the entire insurance policy is at issue” or (2) “the 22 value of the underlying tort claims exceeds the liability ceiling,” the liability limits of the policy 23 are relevant in determining the amount in controversy. Id. 24 Conceding that this lawsuit seeks the determination of whether an insurance policy with a 25 liability limit of $15,000 covers an accident, CSAA has not shown that the amount in controversy 26 requirement is satisfied. Further, the only question raised by CSAA’s Complaint is whether Ms. 27 Mallett’s insurance policy would apply to the accident that was at issue in the state court lawsuit 1 || limited to $15,000 even if the damages for the accident exceeds the liability limit. ECF No. 1 at 2 || 3:11-17. Thus, CSAA’s liability is limited to $15,000 if the accident is covered by the policy. 3 || Accordingly, the amount in controversy falls far short of exceeding $75,000.! 4 The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the current matter and must 5 || dismiss sua sponte. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action 1s dismissed without prejudice for lack of 7 || subject matter jurisdiction. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CSAA’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 9) is 9 || denied as moot. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to 11 || the Defendants at the addresses they were served at in ECF Nos. 3, 4, and 6. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter final judgment accordingly, 13 || dismiss the action, and close the case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED this 9™ day of March, 2023. 16 Al ly 17 LARRY R. HICKS 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || 1 Although CSAA’s Complaint also secks attorney fees, there has been no showing that CSAA would qualify to recover them and no showing of what those attorney fees are.