Quantcast

Woman lowers request in $100,000 lawsuit to $75,000, gets case remanded back to St. Louis court

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Saturday, November 23, 2024

Woman lowers request in $100,000 lawsuit to $75,000, gets case remanded back to St. Louis court

Lawsuits
Gavelmoney

ST. LOUIS – A woman’s vow not to sue for more than $75,000 convinced a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the Eastern Division to grant her motion to remand her case against an insurance company back to state court.

Christal Bowen sought to remand the case to state court. She filed an affidavit where she promised not to ask for more than $75,000. Judge John M. Bodenhausen granted the motion on June 5.

Bowen sued LM General Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City. She asked for judgment concerning her “underinsured motorist benefits, interest, penalties for vexatious refusal to pay and attorney’s fees," the ruling states. Bowen didn’t claim a certain number of damages based on state law. 

LM Insurance removed the case to the federal court in April based on diversity of citizenship. It also pointed out Bowen asked for more than $75,000. She alleged said she entitled to $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage via a car insurance policy from LM Insurance since she suffered serious injuries from a December 2015 auto accident.

She filed a second affidavit after the court told her to supplement it based on Missouri state law, considering her first one was silent concerning attorney’s fees.

“This amended affidavit clarifies the original petition which did not include a specific prayer of damages in accordance with Missouri state law,” said Bodenhausen. “By filing the amended affidavit, plaintiff has established to a legal certainty that her claim for recovery is less than the requisite jurisdictional amount. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand will be granted.”

The case was remanded back to the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis.

The judge added that since she challenged the amount in controversy, removal was appropriate as it was no longer above the $100,000 threshold.

More News