United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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).
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 ...