Keith Pearce v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company

── Keith Pearce v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 23-14081 Document: 69-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 Page: 1 of 28 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-14081 ____________________ KEITH PEARCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JANET PEARCE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-14353-DMM ____________________ Before BRANCH, ABUDU, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 23-14081 Document: 69-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 Page: 2 of 28 2 Opinion of the Court 23-14081 PER CURIAM: Keith and Janet Pearce, Florida residents, sought and obtained insurance coverage from State Farm for a diamond pendant. When they requested a refund of certain premiums following a claim for total loss, State Farm refused to pay. In the ensuing putative class action lawsuit for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the Pearces filed a series of complaints naming different State Farm entities as defendants: the initial complaint named State Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“SF Fire”), and State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“SF Florida”); then the first amended complaint named State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“SF Mutual”) and SF Florida; and finally the second amended complaint named SF Florida and SF Fire. The district court determined that SF Florida was the insurer with whom the Pearces had contracted and dismissed all claims against the other defendants. Then, finding that the only remaining named parties were Florida residents, the district court dismissed the remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). The Pearces now appeal. 1 After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the dismissal of the claims against SF Mutual and SF Fire. However, we conclude that the district court erred in its 1 The Pearces voluntarily amended their first complaint. They appeal only the dismissal of the First and Second Amended Complaints. USCA11 Case: 23-14081 Document: 69-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 Page: 3 of 28 23-14081 Opinion of the Court 3 jurisdictional analysis. Therefore, we vacate the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand for a new jurisdictional inquiry. I. Background 2 According to the Pearces’ complaints, this case arises from an insurance agreement between Keith and Janet Pearce and State Farm Florida, State Farm Mutual, and/or State Farm Fire.3 In January 2016, State Farm issued the Pearces a Personal Article Policy for a diamond pendant, which had an appraised value of $34,496. In the event of a total loss, the