Party Notice: Orest Babchuk v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Aon National Flood Services, Kah Insurance Brokerage Inc.

On August 06, 2018 a Party Notice was filed involving a dispute between Carmel Richmond Health Care And Rehabilitation Center, Orest Babchuk, and Aon National Flood Services, Kah Insurance Brokerage Inc., Norma Blackman, The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, for Commercial - Insurance in the District Court of Richmond County.

Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/04/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
------------------------------------x
:
OREST BABCHUK, :
: Index No. 152018/2018
Plaintiffs, : Date Filed: 8/6/18
:
- against - :
:
THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE :
COMPANY, AON NATIONAL FLOOD :
SERVICES, and KAH INSURANCE :
BROKERAGE INC., :
:
Defendants. :
------------------------------------x

C O U N S E L O R S:

NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, The Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), a Write-Your-Own

(“WYO”) Program insurance carrier participating in the U.S. Government’s National Flood

Insurance Program (“NFIP”) pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 ("NFIA"), as

amended,1 and appears herein in its "fiduciary"2 capacity as the “fiscal agent of the United

States."3 Hartford files this Notice of Filing of a Notice of Removal from this Court to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the District of Brooklyn. Attached

hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the Notice of Removal filed in federal court. This Defendant prays

that no further action will occur in this case as this Court has been divested of jurisdiction.

1
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001, et seq.
2
44 C.F.R. § 62.23(f).
3
42 U.S.C. § 4071(a)(1); see also Palmieri v. Allstate Ins. Co., 445 F.3d 179, 186 (2d Cir. 2006).

1 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/04/2018

WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the Court and all parties that ha

make appearance in this proceeding take note that this matter has been remove

States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the District of Broo

further actions will occur in this case.

Dated: New York, New York

September 4, 2018

R spectfully Submitted,

y
e Marfe Esposito

CON FARRELL CURTIN & KE
Local Counsel for The Hartford Fi

Company
48 Wall Street, 20th Floor

New York, New York 10005

P: (212) 785-2929; F: (212) 785-7229

Email: amesnosito@coilwavfarrell.com

To: Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq.

The Law offices of Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq., P.C.

532 Union Street

Brooklyn, NY 11215

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/04/2018

EXHIBIT 3 of 46
A
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 1 09/04/2018

Anne Marie Esposito
CONWAY, FARRELL, CURTIN & KELLY, P.C.
48 Wall Street, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10005
P: (212) 785-2929; F: (212) 785-7229
Email: amesposito@conwayfarrell.com
Local Counsel for The Hartford Fire Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
:
OREST BABCHUK, : Case No. 1:18-cv-4994
:
Plaintiff, :
:
- against - : NOTICE OF REMOVAL
:
THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE :
COMPANY, AON NATIONAL FLOOD :
SERVICES, and KAH INSURANCE :
BROKERAGE INC., :
:
Defendants. :
------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, The Hartford Fire Insurance Company

(“Hartford”), pursuant to and arising under 42 U.S.C. § 4072; 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1), Article

VII(R), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1337, 1367, 1441(a), (b) & (c), 1446, and other applicable

law, and through its undersigned counsel, hereby removes the state court action entitled Orest

Babchuk v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Aon National Flood Services, and Kah

Insurance Brokerage Inc., filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of

Richmond (“State Court Action”) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

New York in the District of Brooklyn. As required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a short and plain

statement of the grounds for removal is set forth below:

4 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 2 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 2 09/04/2018

INTRODUCTION

1. On August 6, 2018, the Plaintiff, Orest Babchuk, commenced this action, bearing

Index No. 152018/2018, by filing a Summons and Complaint (NYSCEF No. 1) in the Supreme

Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a),

copies of all pleadings, processes, and orders (there were no orders) in the State Court Action are

attached collectively as Exhibit “A.”

2. Plaintiff alleges that on October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy caused damage to his

property located at 79 Marine Way, Staten Island, NY 10306-5761 (“the Property”). See

Complaint, at ¶¶ 1, 9 & 10 (Exh. “A”). Plaintiff contends that Defendants, Hartford, Kah Insurance

Brokerage Inc., and Aon National Flood Services, insured the Property for damage from flood

under Policy Number 87040615992017. See Complaint, at ¶ 1 (Exh. “A”). Plaintiff alleges that he

reported the damage and properly submitted a claim for flood damage, but Defendants denied at

least a portion of Plaintiff’s claims. See Complaint, at ¶¶ 11-12. Plaintiff alleges (1) breach of

contract, (2) breach of good faith and fair dealing and (3) violations of New York General Business

Law §§ 349 and 350. See Complaint, at ¶¶ 16-34.

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a civil action brought in a state court, over which

the United States District Court has original jurisdiction, may be removed to that District Court

embracing the place where such action is pending. Because the State Court Action was pending

in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond, this Court has removal

jurisdiction.

4. Moreover, all cases involving claims for benefits under the National Flood

Insurance Program “are to be litigated exclusively in federal court.” Palmieri v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

445 F.3d 179, 186 (2d Cir. 2006).

5 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 3 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 3 09/04/2018

5. This Notice of Removal is filed within 30 days after Hartford received the initial

pleading and is therefore timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). According to the affidavit of service

filed in the State Court Action, Hartford was served on August 15, 2018, and this Notice of

Removal is filed on September 4, 2018. Exhibit “A.”

6. While itis unclear from the docket whether all Defendants have been properly

served, all Defendants have consented to removal and, therefore, Hartford is compliant with 28

U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Attached collectively as Exhibit “B” are Defendants’ (1) Notices of

Consent to Removal and (2) correspondence dated August 29, 2018 confirming Defendants’

consent to removal.

7. Defendants will promptly provide written notice of removal to the Plaintiff and

shall file a copy of this Notice along with Notice of Removal to Federal Court with the Clerk of

the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond, where this action currently is

pending pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

A. Background

8. As grounds for removal, this Defendant would state that Hartford is a Write-Your-

Own (“WYO”) Program insurance carrier participating in the U.S. Government’s National Flood

Insurance Program (“NFIP”) pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (“NFIA”), as

amended,1 and appears herein in its “fiduciary”2 capacity as the “fiscal agent of the United States”3

1
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001 et seq.
2
44 C.F.R. § 62.23(f).
3
42 U.S.C. § 4071(a)(1); see also Palmieri v. Hartford Ins. Co., 445 F.3d 179, 186 (2d Cir. 2006).

6 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 4 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 4 09/04/2018

and at the expense of the U.S. Treasury.4 As discussed herein, Plaintiff’s lawsuit may only be

addressed in this federal court regardless of the amount in controversy as Plaintiff has placed at

issue matters exclusively regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”)

under authority of the Congress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 4013(a), 4018(a) & (b) and 4019.

9. The subject-matter place at issue concerns Standard Flood Insurance Policy

Number 87040615992017 (“Policy”) that Hartford issued in its own name, as a fiscal agent of the

United States, to Plaintiff. See Complaint, at ¶ 1 (Exh. “A”).

10. Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. Section 62.23(d) and (i)(6), Hartford would be responsible

for arranging the adjustment, settlement, payment and defense of all claims arising under the

Policy.

11. Breach-of-contract and related actions against WYOs arise under the NFIA,

federal regulations, common law, and the flood insurance Policy that Hartford procures for and

issues to an insured in its capacity as a WYO carrier under the Act. The Policy covers certain

losses to an insured’s property and contents located in the judicial district where the case is filed

or removed to.

B. Federal Government’s Rules and the WYO Program

12. The Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”) at issue is a codified, federal

regulation found in 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1). The NFIP is administered by FEMA and is

supported by the federal treasury, which pays for claims that exceed the revenues collected by

private insurers from flood insurance premiums. See Palmieri, 445 F.3d at 183 (citing Van Holt v.

Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165 n.2 (3d Cir. 1998)). Although private insurers issue

the policies, FEMA underwrites the risk. See Palmieri, 445 F.3d at 184 (citing C.E.R. 1988, Inc.

4
42 U.S.C. §§ 4018 and 4081(a); 44 C.F.R. Pt. 62, App. A, Art. III(D)(2).

7 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 5 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 5 09/04/2018

v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 386 F.3d 263, 267 (3d Cir. 2004)). Given that Hartford issued an SFIP

to Plaintiff, it is clear that the Summons and Complaint relates to the SFIP and to Hartford’s role

as a WYO Program carrier.

13. Plaintiff has asserted a claim for flood insurance benefits based upon the SFIP

issued by Hartford. Per 42 U.S.C. § 4019, Congress delegated to FEMA alone the authority to set

the rules that govern NFIP claims disputes.

14. Congress underwrites all operations of the NFIP through the U.S. Treasury. This

includes appropriations for both the adjustment of claims and the payment of those claims.

Similarly, Congress has conferred rule-making power upon the agency created for carrying out its

policy, specifically FEMA. See Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947).

15. Hartford, as a WYO Program carrier, is authorized to issue SFIPs on behalf of the

federal government pursuant to a so-called “Arrangement” with FEMA. See 44 C.F.R. Pt. 62, App.

16. Hartford cannot waive, alter or amend any of the provisions of the SFIP. See 44

C.F.R. § 61.13(d) and 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1), Art. VII(D).

17. Hartford’s role, as a WYO Program carrier and as set forth in the Arrangement, is

to market, sell and administer SFIP policies as well as handle claims under SFIPs that it is

authorized to issue on behalf of the federal government. To this end, FEMA issued a bulletin

clarifying its long standing position as to its program that all claims regarding the SFIP, from the

initial sale forward, are governed by federal law alone. See, e.g., Grigsby v. Fidelity Nat’l Property

& Cas. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 4591930, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2011) (citing FEMA Bulletin W-

09038 and supportive case law). It is clear that Hartford, in its WYO capacity, is conducting all

8 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 6 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 6 09/04/2018

of these actions in its fiduciary capacity as the “fiscal agent” of the United States. See 44 C.F.R.

§ 62.23(f) and 42 U.S.C. § 4071(a)(1), respectively.

18. The NFIP is administered by FEMA and supported by taxpayer funds, which pay

for claims that exceed the premiums collected from the insured. Jacobson v. Metropolitan Prop.

& Cas. Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 171, 174 (2d Cir. 2012). All flood claim payments are made out of a

segregated account containing U.S. Treasury funds, as required by 44 C.F.R. Pt. 62, App. A, Arts.

III(D)(1), (2) & (3); see also Palmieri, 445 F.3d at 184. The Third Circuit noted that “regardless

[of] whether FEMA or a WYO company issues a flood insurance policy, the United States

Treasury funds pay off the insured’s claim.” Van Holt, 163 F.3d at 165. The Eleventh Circuit

analyzed what funds are at stake in the NFIP and noted that Aclaim payments come out of FEMA’s

pocket regardless of how they are paid.” Newton v. Capital Assur. Co., Inc., 245 F.3d 1306, 1311

(11th Cir. 2001), rehearing en banc denied, 263 F.3d 172 (11th Cir. 2001). The payment that the

Plaintiff seeks in this action would constitute a “direct charge on the public treasury,” and would

be “binding” upon the federal government. 44 C.F.R. § 62.23(i)(1); Gowland v. Aetna, 143 F.3d

951, 955 (5th Cir. 1998).

19. Effective October 1, 2004, there was a revised “Arrangement” between FEMA and

all WYO Program carriers. In that revised Arrangement, FEMA further clarified its regulations to

make clear that disputes arising from claims handling, policy sales and administration are

performed by the WYO Program carriers (a) in their fiduciary capacity to the government, (b)

utilizing federal funds, and (c) governed by extensive federal regulations. See 44 C.F.R. Pt. 62,

App. A, Art. I. Thus, any allegations as to the handling of the Plaintiff’s flood insurance claim

invoke Hartford’s obligations under the Arrangement with FEMA.

9 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 7 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 7 09/04/2018

20. Moreover, FEMA stated its view that “any” such litigation states a federal question.

Id. Each of these points is now clearly stated within the revised “Arrangement” and in the

following two paragraphs:

Whereas, FIA has promulgated regulations and guidance implementing the Act and
the Write-Your-Own Program whereby participating private insurance companies
act in a fiduciary capacity utilizing federal funds to sell and administer the Standard
Flood Insurance Policies [“SFIP”], and has extensively regulated the participating
companies’ activities when selling or administering the Standard Flood Insurance
Policies; and

Whereas any litigation resulting from, related to, or arising from the Company’s
compliance with the written standards, procedures, and guidance issued by FEMA
or FIA arises under the Act, regulations, or FIA guidance, and legal issues
thereunder raise a federal question; and . . .

44 C.F.R. Pt. 62, App. A, Article I, “Findings, Purpose, and Authority.” The Summons and

Complaint institutes litigation against Hartford in its capacity as a WYO Program carrier because

the Plaintiff takes issue with amounts paid to him, or not paid to him, under a NFIP policy.

C. Federal Jurisdiction

1. Original Exclusive Jurisdiction

21. The law of 42 U.S.C. § 4072 is clear. It conveys “original exclusive” jurisdiction

over claims under the NFIP. While sitting on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice

Sotomayor conducted an in-depth analysis of 42 U.S.C. § 4072 as to claims against WYO Program

carriers and held “. . . we join the Third and Sixth Circuits in holding that § 4072 gives rise to

jurisdiction over claims against WYO companies.” See Palmieri, 445 F.3d at 187. See also C.E.R.

1988, Inc., 386 F.3d at 267, n.4; Van Holt, 163 F.3d at 165.

22. Plaintiff must have been aware of the requirement of filing in federal court as SFIP

Article VII(R) clearly states that all disputes under the policy must be filed in the United States

District Court of the district in which the covered property was located at the time of the loss.

10 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 8 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 8 09/04/2018

Certainly Hartford is not suggesting that jurisdiction could be created by contract, but instead it is

pointing out that Plaintiff was fully aware of the requirement of filing in federal court. Further,

because the SFIP is a codified federal regulation, Plaintiff is charged with knowledge of this

requirement. See Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 332 U.S. at 384-85.

2. Federal Question Jurisdiction

23. Hartford asserts that the SFIP is a codified federal regulation found in its entirety

at 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1) and is governed exclusively by federal laws and the NFIA. As per

the terms of the SFIP, this policy and all disputes arising from the handling of any claim under the

policy are governed exclusively by the flood insurance regulations issued by FEMA, the National

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 4001, et seq.), and federal common law.

See 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1), Article IX. Because the flood policy must be interpreted using

federal common law, federal jurisdiction exists pursuant to and arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The Third Circuit has found that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 applies to claims made under the flood policy.

Van Holt, 163 F.3d at 167.

24. In this matter, Plaintiff seeks flood benefits under the SFIP based on Defendants’

alleged (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of good faith and fair dealing and (3) violations of New

York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. See Complaint, at ¶¶ 16-34.

25. In order to determine what, if any, U.S. Treasury benefits Plaintiff may be entitled

to receive in this lawsuit, this federal court will necessarily have to interpret the SFIP itself as well

as the federal laws, regulations and statutes governing the SFIP. Federal common law governs the

interpretation of the SFIP. Jacobson v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 171, 174 (2d

Cir. 2012). As the SFIP is a federal law, necessarily the interpretation of the SFIP (and the federal

laws governing the operation of the NFIP) to determine the coverage provided thereunder, and any

11 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 9 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 9 09/04/2018

amounts due under the SFIP would require the interpretation of a federal law which presents a

federal question. Thus, there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the case

is therefore also removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).

26. The payment that Plaintiff seeks from Hartford under the SFIP would be paid by

FEMA and would be “binding” upon the federal government. 44 C.F.R. Pt. 62, App. A, Art. II(F);

Van Holt, 163 F.3d at 166.

27. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) & (c),

Hartford asserts that there are multiple federal questions presented within Plaintiff’s suit which

may only be addressed by this Honorable Court.

3. U.S. Treasury Funds Are at Stake

28. Whether or not Plaintiff is owed flood benefits in this litigation, Hartford’s role as

a WYO Program carrier takes place as the fiscal agent of the United States. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 4071(a)(1) and 44 C.F.R. Pt. 62, App. A, Art. III. NFIP claims are funded by the U.S. Treasury.

See Palmieri, 445 F.3d at 183; see also Evanoff v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 534 F.3d 516, 519-20

(6th Cir. 2008); Gallup v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 434 F.3d 341, 342 (5th Cir. 2005); Wright

v. Hartford, 415 F.3d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 2005); Gowland, 143 F.3d at 955. FEMA’s regulations

make clear that payments made by the WYO carriers “shall be binding upon the FIA.” 44 C.F.R.

§ 62.23(i)(1). FEMA’s “Arrangement” with the WYO Program companies (such as Hartford) also

makes clear that federal funds are utilized to pay the claims directly, and not through a

reimbursement mechanism. See 44 C.F.R. Pt. 62, App. A, Arts. II(E), III(D)(1), and IV(A); see

also Flick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 386, n.10 (9th Cir. 2000), cert denied, 531 U.S.

927 (2000).

12 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. Case
NO. 4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 10 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 10 09/04/2018

29. Regarding the instant litigation, FEMA’s Arrangement with WYO Program carriers

establishes that all of Hartford’s defense costs will be paid by the Program if litigation arises. 44

C.F.R. Pt. 62, App. A, Art. III(C)(3) and Art. III(D)(2); see also 44 C.F.R. Pt. 62.23(i)(b) and (9);

Newton v. Capital Assur. Co., Inc., 245 F.3d 1306, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001).

4. Complaint Brings Into Play an Act of Congress

30. Removal of this case is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1337, which provides that

the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any

act of Congress regulating interstate commerce. 28 U.S.C. § 1337 is not subject to the well-

pleaded-Petition rule. Under § 1337, removal is proper where the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s

Complaint bring into play an act of Congress that regulates commerce, regardless of whether any

reference to the said act appears in the Plaintiff’s pleading. Uncle Ben’s International Division of

Uncle Ben’s Inc. v. Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, 855 F.2d 215, 216-17 (5th Cir. 1988); Crispin

Co. v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., 134 F. Supp. 704, 706 (S.D. Tex. 1955); Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico v. Sea-Land Service Inc., 349 F. Supp. 964, 973-74 (D.P.R. 1970).

31. Clearly, under 42 U.S.C. § 4001, et seq., Congress is regulating commerce by

promulgating the complex and comprehensive statutory scheme that is commonly described as the

National Flood Insurance Act. As recognized in C.E.R. 1988, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 386

F.3d 263, n.3 (3d Cir. 2004):

The insurance industry in the United States operates in interstate commerce. States
may regulate the insurance industry only to the extent Congress permits. U.S.
Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The McCarren-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 1011, et seq.,
grants states this power except where Congress enacts legislation that Aspecifically
relates to the business of insurance.@ 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (b). In Barnett Bank of
Marion County v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25, 116 S. Ct. 1103, 134 L.Ed.2d 237 (1996),
the Supreme Court held that the exception for acts relating to the business of
insurance should be construed broadly, noting that “ [t]he word ‘relates’ is highly
general.” Id. at 38, 116 S. Ct. 1103. Without doubt the NFIA is congressionally
enacted legislation relating to the business of insurance.

13 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. Case
NO. 4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 11 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 11 09/04/2018

32. Beyond the general proposition that the NFIA regulates commerce, it is also clear

that in a more particularized sense, the Act expressly regulates both the subjects of claims and

claims handling, as well as the conditions of insurability. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 4013 & 4019.

Simply put, federal laws affecting commerce are involved in the facts put at issue in the Plaintiff’s

suit, and so removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

5. Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Any State Claims

33. To the extent that any of the claims of the Plaintiff are not subject to federal

jurisdiction, this Court has jurisdiction over all such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which

provides that “the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are

so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same

case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see also

Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 125 S. Ct. 2611, 2620 (2005).

34. All of the claims put at issue in the Plaintiff’s Complaint arise from their efforts to

obtain additional flood insurance benefits. As such, all of the Plaintiff’s legal claims arise from

the same nucleus of operative fact, that being the underlying flood loss claim, and all of the

insurance issues arising therefrom. Traditionally, federal courts have exercised supplemental

jurisdiction over all such claims in cases of this type. See, e.g., Winkler v. State Farm Fire, 266 F.

Supp. 2d 509, 513-14 (S.D. Miss. 2003); Jamal v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Ins. Co., 97 F. Supp.

2d 800, 805 (S.D. Tx. 2000). Handling all claims arising in this dispute in one forum will serve

the interest of judicial economy and fairness. Winkler, 266 F. Supp. 2d at 514.

D. Procedural Requirements for Removal Have Been Met

35. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a civil action brought in a state court, over which

the United States District Court has original jurisdiction, may be removed to that District Court

14 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. Case
NO. 4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 12 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 12 09/04/2018

embracing the place where such action is pending. Because the State Court Action was pending

in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond, this Court has removal

jurisdiction.

36. Venue is proper in a designated judicial district pursuant to pursuant 28 U.S.C. §

1391, 42 U.S.C. § 4072, and 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1), Art. VII(R) because Richmond County

is where a substantial part of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Therefore, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the District of Brooklyn is

the proper venue.

37. This Notice of Removal is filed within thirty days after Hartford’s receipt of the

initial pleading and is therefore timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

38. While all defendants may not have been properly served to date, Hartford has

obtained the consent of all defendants to remove this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A).

See Exhibit “B.”

39. Defendants will promptly provide written notice of removal to the Plaintiff and

shall file a copy of this Notice along with Notice of Removal to Federal Court with the Clerk of

the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond, where this action currently is

pending pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

40. In the event any questions arise as to the propriety of the removal of this action, the

Defendant requests the opportunity to brief any disputed issues and to present oral argument in

support of its position.

WHEREFORE, this Defendant gives notice that the matter bearing Index number

152018/2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond, is removed to

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

15 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. Case
NO. 4 1:18-cv-04994 Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 13 of 13 PageID NYSCEF:
RECEIVED #: 13 09/04/2018

Dated: New York, New York
September 4, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,

By: ____/s/____________________________
Anne Marie Esposito
CONWAY, FARRELL, CURTIN & KELLY, P.C.
Local Counsel for The Hartford Fire Insurance
Company
48 Wall Street, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10005
P: (212) 785-2929; F: (212) 785-7229
Email: amesposito@conwayfarrell.com

AND

Butler Snow LLP

By: /s/ Patrick T. Bergin
1300 Twenty-Fifth Avenue, Suite 204
Gulfport, Mississippi 39501
(228) 864-1170
Direct Dial: (228) 575-3040
Fax No.: (228) 868-1531
E-mail: patrick.bergin@butlersnow.com
Counsel for The Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission to be Submitted

16 of 46
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 09/04/2018 05:24 PM INDEX NO. 152018/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Case
4 1:18-Cv-04994 DoCument 1-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 2 PagelD
RECEIVED #: 14
NYSCEF: 09/04/2018

JS44 (Rev. 1/2013) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheetand the information contained herein neither replace nor supplementthe filing andservice of pleadings or other papersas required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court, This form, approved by the Judicial Conlcrence of the United Statesin September1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purposeof initiating the civil docket sheet
(SEEINSTRUCTIONS
ONNEXTPAGEOF THISFORM.)

I.(a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AON NATIONAL
ORESTBABCHUK,

Case Info

Judge

Alan C Marin Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 04, 2018

Case Filing Date

August 06, 2018

County

Parties

AON NATIONAL FLOOD SERVICES Defendant
Carmel Richmond Health Care and Rehabilitation Center Plaintiff
ESPOSITO, ANNE MARIE Attorney for the Defendant
ESPOSITO, ANNE MARIE Attorney for the Defendants
KAH INSURANCE BROKERAGE INC. Defendant
Norma Blackman Defendant
Orest Babchuk Plaintiff
PONTONE, MICHAEL JAY SANTINO Attorney for the Plaintiff
THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant
TROCHEZ, ANDREA MARIE Attorney for the Plaintiff
STEFAN PRIVIN Attorney
ANGELO BIANCO Attorneys for Defendants
JOSEPH D'AGOSTINO Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARVIN UWANGUE Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JAMES MILLER Attorney
ELYSSA SHIFREN Attorney
JEFFREY COHEN Attorneys for Defendants
MICHAEL JUCEAM Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HUNTER CRISCIONE Attorneys for Defendants
ANTHONY ABRUSCATI Attorneys for Defendants
JOHN NICOLINI Attorneys for Defendants
JAMES RUGER Attorneys for Defendants
MICHAEL BUSH Attorney
SANDRA LEPORIN Attorney
VICTOR BARRON Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HEATHER JULIEN Attorneys for Defendants
JONATHAN WALDAUER Attorneys for Defendants
ADRIANA SOLIMEO Attorney
JUAN GONZALEZ Attorney
FRED COHEN Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Notice: Orest Babchuk v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Aon National Flood Services, Kah Insurance Brokerage Inc.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties