Bradley v. Integon Indemnity Company

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAWN BRADLEY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 6:25-cv-03403-MDH
)
INTEGON INDEMNITY COMPANY1, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 11). Defendant has failed to file
Suggestions in Opposition and the time to do so has elapsed. The motion is now ripe for
adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision on U.S. Highway 65 in Springfield,
Missouri. Plaintiff Dawn Bradley is a resident of Greene County, Missouri. Defendant Integon
Indemnity Corporation is a foreign corporation with its principal office in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina.
Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 10, 2025, an uninsured motorist, Jason Parsons, was
operating a motor vehicle when he crossed lanes from the exit ramp of U.S. Highway 65 in
Springfield, Missouri and collided with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Mr. Parson’s
negligence, she sustained injuries to her right wrist, hand, neck, and head, including a right-wrist
1 Defendant was misnamed in the initial state court petition. Defendant’s proper name is Integon Indemnity
Corporation.
Case 6:25-cv-03403-MDH Document 12 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 5

2
sprain with MRI-confirmed soft-tissue inflammation, hand contusion, cervical strain, and
associated pain and impairment. Plaintiff alleges that prior to the incident, Plaintiff was insured
under an automobile insurance policy (“the Policy”) issued by Defendant, which was in full force
and effect on July 10, 2025. The Policy provides uninsured motorist bodily-injury coverage with
limits of at least $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. Plaintiff states she made a
Settlement Offer upon Defendant for payment of her uninsured motorist claim, which Defendant
rejected, and instead offered $16,400. Plaintiff rejected Defendant’s offer.
Plaintiff then filed her Petition in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri asserting
two counts: Count I - Uninsured Motorist Benefits and Count II - Vexatious Refusal to Pay.
Defendant subsequently removed it to this Court. Plaintiff now brings her current motion arguing
that this case should be remanded back to the Circuit Court of Greene County arguing that this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as the requirements for diversity jurisdiction cannot be met.
STANDARD
An action may be removed from state court to federal district court if the case falls within
the original jurisdiction of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 1446(b). 	A removing
defendant “bears the burden of establishing that the district court ha[s] original jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968, 975 (8th Cir. 2011).
“All doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Id.,
citing Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628 F.3d 439, 446 (8th Cir. 2010).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Notice of
Removal concedes that the uninsured motorist policy limit is $50,000 and the maximum statutory
Case 6:25-cv-03403-MDH Document 12 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 5

3
penalty alleged under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420 is $5,150. Thus, the total non-fee damages at issue
are $55,150. Plaintiff further argues that she has submitted an affidavit affirmatively stating that
she will not seek or accept a total recovery exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
including attorney’s fees. Lastly, Plaintiff asserts that no other basis for federal jurisdiction exists
as to this case.
28 U.S.C. § 1332 governs when a federal district court has original jurisdiction of civil
cases arising out of diversity jurisdiction. It states in relevant part:
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between--
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the
district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an
action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who
are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the Untied States and are
domiciled in the same State;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state
are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens
of a State or of different States.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The Court finds that the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction has not been met in
this case and thus this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiff has pleaded in her
Petition that the “Policy provides Uninsured Motorist (UM) bodily-injury coverage with limits of
at least $50,000.00 per person and $100,000.00 per accident.” (Doc. 1-2, ¶ 17). Defendant’s Notice
of Removal states that “Plaintiff seeks to recover in the lawsuit the full policy limit available under
the Policy at issue, $50,000.00.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 6). Thus, the Court finds that for the amount-in-
Case 6:25-cv-03403-MDH Document 12 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 5

4
controversy analysis that the uninsured motorist policy limit is $50,000. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420
governs the damages available in a vexatious refusal to pay claim and states in relevant part:
[T]he Court or jury may, in addition to the amount thereof and interest, allow the
plaintiff damages not to exceed twenty percent of the first fifteen hundred dollars
of the loss, and ten percent of the amount of the loss in excess of fifteen hundred
dollars and a reasonable attorney’s fee[.]
The Court finds that under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420 the maximum statutory penalty in this case
would be $5,150,2 totaling non-fee damages at $55,150.3 Lastly, Plaintiff has submitted an
affidavit which states:
I hereby affirmatively agree and stipulate that I will not seek, request, or accept a
total recovery in this action exceeding $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs,
including but not limited to:
• 	Contractual damages;
• 	Statutory penalties;
• 	Attorney’s fees; and
• 	Any other form of monetary relief.
Specifically, I will not seek or accept attorney’s fees under RSMo § 375.420 in an
amount that would cause the total recovery in this case to exceed $75,000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs. This affidavit is made voluntarily and is intended to
be binding upon me for all purposes in this litigation.
(Doc. 11-1, ¶¶ 4–6). The Court finds this is sufficient to show that the amount-in-controversy
requirement will not exceed $75,000. As such, the Court finds that the amount-in-controversy
requirement has not been met in this case and thus this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. For
the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the reason stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. It is hereby
ORDERED that this matter be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri.
2 ($1,500 x 0.20 = $300) + ($48,500 x 0.10 = $4,850) = $5,150.
3 $50,000 + $5,150 = $55,150.
Case 6:25-cv-03403-MDH Document 12 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 10, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool 	____
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-03403-MDH Document 12 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 5