Ramirez v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS MICHIGAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
DAVID RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 4:25-CV-284 (CDL)
O R D E R
David 	Ramirez 	was 	insured 	under 	a 	property 	insurance 	policy
issued 	by 	Foremost 	Insurance 	Company. 	Ramirez 	alleges 	that 	he
suffered a covered loss caused by vandalism on August 1, 2024 and
that Foremost denied coverage for his claim. 	Compl. ¶¶ 7, 13, ECF
No. 5-1. 	Ramirez filed an action in the Superior Court of Muscogee
County 	for 	breach 	of 	contract 	and 	bad 	faith 	denial 	of 	insurance
coverage. 	The 	complaint 	did 	not 	allege 	a 	specific 	amount 	of
damages, but Ramirez did include as an exhibit a demand letter his
counsel 	had 	sent 	to 	Foremost, 	which 	stated 	that 	the 	estimated
damages 	for 	a 	loss 	that 	occurred 	on 	August 	1, 	2024 	totaled
$109,811.85. 	Compl. Ex. B, Demand Letter 1-2 (May 19, 2025), ECF
No. 5-1 at 32-33. 	Relying on that demand letter, Foremost removed
the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. 	Ramirez
filed 	a 	motion 	to 	remand, 	arguing 	that 	the 	$75,000 	amount 	in
controversy 	is 	not 	met. 	As 	discussed 	below, 	the 	Court 	denies
Ramirez’s motion to remand (ECF No. 7).
Case 4:25-cv-00284-CDL Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
DISCUSSION
A defendant may remove a state court action to federal court
if 	the 	federal 	court 	would 	have 	original 	jurisdiction 	over 	the
subject 	matter 	and 	certain 	procedural 	requirements 	are 	met. 	28
U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446. 	Here, Foremost removed the action based
on diversity jurisdiction, which exists if the action “is between
citizens of different States” and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1332(a)(1). 	There 	is 	no 	dispute 	that 	the
complete diversity requirement is met because Ramirez is a Georgia
citizen and Foremost is a Michigan citizen. 	The remaining question
is whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time
of removal.
Where 	the 	plaintiff 	makes 	an 	unspecified 	demand 	for 	damages
in a state court complaint, removal is only allowed if the district
court 	finds, 	by 	a 	preponderance 	of 	the 	evidence, 	that 	the 	amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). 	As the
party 	seeking 	to 	establish 	federal 	jurisdiction, 	the 	removing
defendant 	has 	the 	burden 	to 	establish 	that 	the 	amount 	in
controversy 	exceeds 	the 	jurisdictional 	requirement. 	S. 	Fla.
Wellness, 	Inc. 	v. 	Allstate 	Ins. 	Co., 	745 	F.3d 	1312, 	1315 	(11th
Cir. 2014). 	“What counts is the amount in controversy at the time
of 	removal.” 	Id. 	Sometimes, 	it 	is 	facially 	apparent 	from 	the
complaint 	that 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	is 	met. 	See 	Roe 	v.
Michelin 	N. 	Am., 	Inc., 	613 	F.3d 	1058, 	1061 	(11th 	Cir. 	2010)
Case 4:25-cv-00284-CDL Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
(finding 	that 	the 	district 	court 	reasonably 	concluded 	that 	the
amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 in a wrongful death product
liability 	action 	under 	Alabama 	law). 	In 	other 	cases, 	a 	removing
defendant 	must 	present 	evidence 	to 	carry 	its 	burden. 	S. 	Fla.
Wellness, Inc., 745 F.3d at 1316.
Here, 	Ramirez 	does 	not 	seek 	a 	specific 	amount 	of 	damages 	in
the body of his complaint. 	He does allege that he is entitled to
the 	amount 	of 	his 	loss, 	as 	well 	as 	penalties 	for 	the 	alleged 	bad
faith failure to pay his claim. 	Ramirez further alleges that the
loss occurred on August 1, 2024 and that his Foremost claim number
was 5025444499-1. 	Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9. 	Remirez attached as an exhibit
to his complaint a demand letter regarding Claim No. 5025444499-1
arising from a loss that occurred at Ramirez’s property on August
1, 	2024. 	Compl. 	Ex. 	B, 	Demand 	Letter 	1-2(May 	19, 	2025), 	ECF 	No.
5-1 at 32-33. 	In that letter, Ramirez’s counsel represented that
he 	enclosed 	an 	estimate 	of 	damages 	totaling 	$109,811.85. 	Id. 	at
2, ECF No. 5-1 at 33. 	The demand letter “is a part of the pleading
for 	all 	purposes.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	10(c). 	Accordingly, 	the
complaint 	on 	its 	face 	suggests 	that 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy
exceeds $75,000.00.
Ramirez 	nonetheless 	contends 	that 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy
is 	not 	met 	because 	in 	addition 	to 	the 	May 	19, 	2025 	letter, 	his
counsel sent a separate letter to Foremost on April 30, 2025. 	That
letter 	is 	about 	Claim 	No. 	5034594810-1, 	which 	arose 	from 	a 	loss
Case 4:25-cv-00284-CDL Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
that 	occurred 	at 	Ramirez’s 	property 	on 	September 	27, 	2024, 	and
counsel 	represented 	that 	he 	enclosed 	an 	estimate 	of 	damages
totaling $23,863.71 for that loss. 	Pl.’s Mot. Remand Ex. A, Demand
Letter 	(Apr. 	30, 	2025), 	ECF 	No. 	7-1. 	But 	the 	complaint 	in 	this
action 	does 	not 	appear 	to 	reference 	a 	September 	27, 	2024 	loss 	or
Claim 	No. 	5034594810-1. 	Rather, 	the 	complaint 	focuses 	on 	Claim
No. 5025444499-1 regarding an August 1, 2024 loss and incorporates
a demand letter stating that the estimate of damages for that claim
exceeds 	$100,000.00. 	Thus, 	the 	April 	30, 	2025 	letter 	Ramirez
attached 	to 	his 	motion 	to 	remand 	is 	not 	conclusive 	evidence 	that
the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	does 	not 	exceed 	$75,000; 	it 	is 	simply
evidence 	that 	Ramirez 	filed 	a 	separate 	claim 	with 	Foremost 	for 	a
loss 	that 	occurred 	on 	September 	27, 	2024 	with 	an 	estimated 	value
of 	$23,863.71. 	Accordingly, 	the 	April 	30, 	2025 	letter 	does 	not
establish 	that 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	is 	lower 	than 	the
jurisdictional 	amount. 	The 	Court 	thus 	declines 	to 	remand 	this
action.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	explained 	above, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	the
amount 	in 	controversy 	requirement 	is 	met. 	The 	Court 	thus 	denies
Ramirez’s motion to remand (ECF No. 7).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of January, 2026.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:25-cv-00284-CDL Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 4