Tate v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUSTIN TATE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-25-1557-PRW
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Binding Stipulation of
Damages (Dkt. 2). This matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for review. For the reasons
that follow, the Motion (Dkt. 2) is DENIED.
On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff, an Oklahoma citizen, commenced this action for
breach of contract, insurance bad faith, fraud, and punitive damages in the Oklahoma
District Court of Payne County, following an insurance dispute related to a vehicle fire.
Defendant then timely removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446,
asserting the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1).
Defendant represents that it is a foreign insurance company with a principal place
of business in Missouri, which Plaintiff does not dispute, thus the parties satisfy §
1332(a)(1)’s complete diversity requirement.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1, Ex. 2) alleges $30,000 in actual damages, as well as
punitive damages pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1 and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff alleges that
Case 5:25-cv-01557-PRW Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Defendant’s bad faith actions were “intentional, reckless, and malicious, undertaken with
disregard for Plaintiffs rights and financial well-being.”1 Under Oklahoma law, when an
insurer “intentionally and with malice breache[s] its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith
with its insured[,]” the insurer is subject to Category II punitive damages, which cannot
exceed the greater of (a) $500,000, (b) twice the amount of actual damages, (c) or the
increased financial benefit the insurer received as a direct result of the bad faith which
caused the insured’s injuries.2
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1, Ex. 2) plausibly alleged an amount-in-
controversy above § 1332(a)(1)’s requisite $75,000 threshold at the time Defendant
removed this action.
“[W]hen a defendant seeks federal-court adjudication, the defendant's amount-in-
controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned
by the court.”3 When, as here, a plaintiff contests a defendant’s alleged amount-in-
controversy, § 1446(c)(2)(B) requires the Court to determine if the preponderance of the
evidence supports the defendant’s allegation.4 The Court need not be satisfied that the
1 Compl. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 2), ¶20.
2 23 O.S. § 9.1(C)(2).
3 Dart Cherokee Bason Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014).
4 Id. at 88.
Case 5:25-cv-01557-PRW Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
defendant’s allegation supports a specific amount in excess of $75,000; the Court must
only find that the allegation plausibly exceeds $75,000.5
Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 2) does contest Defendant’s alleged amount-in-controversy,
arguing that his Complaint (Dkt. 2, Ex. 2) was ambiguous as to damages. He argues that
the same day Defendant removed this case to federal court, he told Defendant that his total
settlement demand was $50,000 and now stipulates to such a limit on his recoverable
amount.
Generally speaking, “[o]nce jurisdiction has attached, events subsequently defeating
it by reducing the amount in controversy are unavailing,”6 but Plaintiff is correct that the
Court can consider a post-removal settlement offer in determining an uncertain amount-in-
controversy.7 However, Plaintiff also 	claims that 	proposed 	settlement amounts 	are
dispositive as to the contested amount-in-controversy. But proposed settlements are only
“relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if [they] appear[] to reflect a reasonable
estimate of the plaintiff’s claim,”8 rather than an amount offered in compromise. And the
probative value of the settlement offer would be stronger had it been made before
5 Id.
6 Miera v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 1337, 1340 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)).
7 McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted).
8 Id.
Case 5:25-cv-01557-PRW Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Defendant removed the case to federal court, since Plaintiff was incentivized to make such
an offer to defeat diversity jurisdiction after Defendant removed the case.9
Defendant is permitted to rely on its estimate of potential damages from Plaintiff’s
allegations in the Complaint (Dkt. 1, Ex. 2).10 Here, Defendant’s estimate certainly
supports a finding that the amount-in-controversy plausibly exceeded $75,000 at the time
of removal, based on Plaintiff’s allegations of bad faith, his prayer for punitive damages,
and applicable Oklahoma law.
Accordingly, 	after 	weighing 	the 	post-removal 	settlement 	offer 	against 	the
Complaint’s prayer for relief at the time of removal and applicable Oklahoma law, the
Court finds that Defendant has proved the facts necessary to establish that more than
$75,000 was in controversy when it removed this case. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
Motion (Dkt. 2).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of April 2026.
9 Phillips v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Case No. 21-CV-390, 2023 WL 2162594, at *2
(N.D. Okla. Feb. 22, 2023) (internal citations omitted).
10 McPhail, 529 F.3d at 955 (internal citations omitted).
Case 5:25-cv-01557-PRW Document 5 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 4