Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Glick

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division

August 16, 2019

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
KELLIE M. GLICK and KACI CLAYTON, as Special Administrator Of the Estate of Kenzie Alyse Schuler, deceased, Defendants.

          OPINION

          SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause is before the Court on Defendant Kaci Clayton's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (d/e 12). Because Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) has established that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Motion is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In May 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Kellie M. Glick and Kaci Clayton, as special administrator of the estate of Kenzi Alyse Schuler, deceased. Liberty Mutual seeks a declaratory judgment that the insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual to Glick provides no coverage in the underlying wrongful-death lawsuit (Underlying Lawsuit), Kaci Clayton, Special Administrator of the Estate of Kenzi Alyse Schuler, deceased v. Kellie M. Glick, Montgomery County, Illinois, No. 2019-L-4. Liberty Mutual alleges the insurance policy provides no coverage for claims arising out of or in connection with a home daycare business. Liberty Mutual also seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend Glick in the Underlying Lawsuit. The policy, which is attached to the Complaint, reflects a $500, 000 policy limit for personal liability.

         The complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit alleges that, on January 29, 2018, Glick, while caring for and babysitting Schuler, performed one or more negligent acts that resulted in the death of Schuler. These acts included placing the infant on a couch that was unsuitable for the infant, failing to keep a proper and safe lookout to prevent or intercede in stopping a death caused by asphyxiation, and failing to property position the infant so as to prevent death by asphyxiation. The Underlying Lawsuit seeks damages in an amount in excess of $50, 000.

         Liberty Mutual alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In support thereof, Liberty Mutual alleges that it is an insurance company organized under the laws of Wisconsin with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Compl. ¶ 4. On information and belief, Liberty Mutual alleges that Glick and Clayton are citizens of Illinois. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. Finally, Liberty Mutual alleges the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, excluding interest and costs. Id. ¶ 8.

         Clayton moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Clayton asserts that the Complaint makes bare allegations without requisite support regarding the citizenship of Liberty Mutual and the amount in controversy. Glick has filed an Answer (d/e 8).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a defendant may move for dismissal of a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). When considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chi., 320 F.3d 698, 701 (7th Cir. 2003). “The court may look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Id.

         III. ANALYSIS

         Diversity jurisdiction exists when the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the suit is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

         Clayton asserts that Liberty Mutual's diversity statement is insufficient because Liberty Mutual makes a “bare allegation without requisite support regarding the citizenship of Plaintiff which is a corporation.” Mot. ¶ 2 (d/e 12). Clayton argues that, while Liberty Mutual has made allegations regarding its state of incorporation and the primary place of business, Liberty Mutual has not “pled that its allegations are based on the personal knowledge of any individual who has knowledge of the facts.” Mem. at 3 (d/e 13). Clayton does not challenge the allegations regarding the citizenship of Clayton or Glick.

         For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Wise v. Waschovia Sec., LLC, 450 F.3d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 2006). When a plaintiff sues a corporation, the plaintiff must allege both the state of incorporation and the state of the principal place of business for the corporation or the complaint will be dismissed. See Casio, Inc. v. S.M. & R. Co., Inc., 755 F.2d 528, 530-31 (7th Cir. 1985).

         In this case, Liberty Mutual alleges that it is organized under the laws of Wisconsin with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. This is sufficient to allege citizenship of a corporation for purposes of a facial challenge. See id. at 530 (providing that the complaint should be dismissed if it fails to allege the state of incorporation and principal place of business and that, if the answer does not deny the allegations, jurisdiction is established); Montgomery v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co. Ltd., 259 F.Supp.3d 857, 863 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (noting that the defendants only raised a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.