MARCIA S. KRIEGER, District Judge.
This is a hail damage case. Plaintiff Wak Inc. is the owner of commercial property located in Denver, Colorado. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, it was insured by a businessowner's insurance policy (Policy) issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance and underwritten by Defendant Ohio Security Insurance Co. Though no copy of the Policy has been submitted to the Court, it is clear from the parties' pleadings that the Policy contains a provision allowing for independent appraisal of the insured property or amount of loss in the case that such loss amount was in dispute by the parties. In many instances, appraisal is a mandatory condition precedent if invoked by either of the parties (though, of course, the parties are free not to invoke it if they both so elect).
In May 2014, Wak's property apparently suffered damage from a hail storm. Wak submitted a claim to Ohio Security for that damage under the Policy. According to Wak's Amended Complaint (
As noted above, the Court has significant doubt that jurisdiction exists for the claims asserted in this case, and now orders the parties to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Starting with the obvious, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that possess only the authority given to them by the United States Constitution and federal statutes.
Unlike doctrines that restrain federal courts from exercising jurisdiction based on the characteristics of the claims themselves (e.g., doctrines of abstention or grants of exclusive jurisdiction), the question of standing focuses on the party who seeks relief, rather than on the issues that he or she wants adjudicated. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968). A plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim.
For each claim or type of relief sought, a plaintiff must show that there it is a "case or controversy" at the time of filing of the lawsuit. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). Thus, for each claim, Wak must demonstrate that: (1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent (not merely conjectural or hypothetical); (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by the relief requested. Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); Tandy v. City of Wichita, 380 F.3d 1277, 1283 (10th Cir.2004); Nova Health Sys. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir. 2005). If Wak suffered some injury subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit, that does not convey standing.
In its Amended Complaint, Wak brings three claims, none of which appear to have been a "case or controversy" at the time the action was initiated. Though the Policy has not been submitted to the Court, it seems implausible that the appraisal provision would not be a condition precedent to the filing of suit. At the time that Wak filed its lawsuit, it asserted that Ohio Security had denied its claim, which would indeed create standing. But the Court is mystified as to why the parties would engage in the appraisal process if the claim were denied. Rather, it appears more likely that Ohio Security did not deny the claim, but instead offered what Wak considered to be an inadequate amount to settle the claim. Thus, at the time the suit was initiated, there could be no cognizable dispute as to payment under the Policy or as to delay in such payment because the payment obligation had not yet arisen; indeed, the payment obligation could not arise until the appraisal process was completed and the claim was finally denied.
It appears to the Court that since the appraisal process has been completed and any claim Wak had to compel appraisal is now moot,