[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-12765 ____________________ DARRYL A. VACHON, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-01201-TPB-SPF ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-12765 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 2 of 19

2 Opinion of the Court 20-12765 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LAGOA, Circuit Judge, and WATKINS, * District Judge. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether we have appellate jurisdiction over an order that remanded a case to state court be- cause of an untimely notice of removal. Because federal law bars us from reviewing orders remanding cases based on a defect in re- moval, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), we lack jurisdiction. So we dismiss this appeal. I. BACKGROUND Darryl Vachon, a citizen of Florida, was involved in a car accident in 2011. After the other driver’s insurance did not cover all of Vachon’s damages, Vachon sought to recover the balance from Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, his provider of “uninsured/underinsured” insurance coverage. Travelers refused to pay. In March 2013, Vachon sued Travelers in a Florida court. Travelers, a citizen of Connecticut, could not remove the action to federal court because Travelers’s “maximum coverage exposure under the . . . policy it issued was $25,000,” which is below the min- imum amount in controversy necessary to invoke diversity juris- diction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“The district courts shall have

*Honorable W. Keith Watkins, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 20-12765 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 3 of 19

20-12765 Opinion of the Court 3 original [diversity] jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000[.]”). At trial in January 2020, the jury determined that Vachon had incurred $1,022,780 in damages, and the state court awarded Vachon $25,000, the policy maximum. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Voigt, 971 So. 2d 239, 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (“[W]hen no dispute exists as to the policy limits . . . , the trial court should . . . grant an insurer’s motion to limit the judgment to the policy limits.”). Under Florida law, a plaintiff who recovers from his insurance company in an underinsurance suit may bring a claim against the company for “[n]ot attempting in good faith to settle [the original underinsurance] claim[.]” FLA. STAT. § 624.155(b)(1). As part of this “bad faith” claim, the plaintiff may seek “any dam- ages” reflected in the jury verdict “in excess of the policy limits.” Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 185 So. 3d 1214, 1222 (Fla. 2016). In its final judgment, the state court “reserve[d] jurisdiction to de- termine the Plaintiff’s right to amend his Complaint to seek and litigate bad faith damages from the Defendant as a result of [the] jury verdict in excess of policy limits.” See id. at 1229 (permitting state courts to retain jurisdiction for that purpose after entering judgment). In April 2020, Vachon moved to amend his complaint to add a bad faith claim. Travelers argued that the court should require Vachon to file a separate lawsuit to recover additional damages be- cause the company could “los[e] the opportunity to pursue re- moval” t