Case Law Update: Royal Foot v. Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance — Federal Court Remands Tower Hill Policy Suit to State Court and Awards Fees

On November 6, 2026, a federal court in Fort Myers granted a motion to remand in Royal Foot, LLC v. Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company and Tower Hill Insurance Group, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-2616 (M.D. Fla.) (Doc. 23), sending a breach-of-contract insurance suit back toward Florida state court. The court also found that the insurer’s removal was “not objectively reasonable,” awarded the plaintiff fees and costs, and ordered two defense attorneys to show cause why they should not reimburse the court for its time and be referred to the local grievance committee. As of this writing, the CourtListener docket (filed in federal court September 21, 2026) shows the case not yet terminated, and the order gives the parties 14 days to seek review before the clerk is directed to remand.

What Happened

According to the court’s order, Royal Foot, LLC filed suit on August 24, 2026 in state court against Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company and Tower Hill Insurance Group, LLC. The order states that, apparently, Vantage Risk “underwrote and issued the insurance policy,” while Tower Hill “(and/or its affiliated entities)” served as Vantage Risk’s general agent, policy administrator, and claims adjuster. Those descriptions come from the complaint as characterized by the court; they are allegations, not findings on the merits.

On September 21, 2026, Vantage Risk removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). The court noted that the notice of removal did not mention Tower Hill at all. Royal Foot moved to remand (Doc. 15), arguing diversity was incomplete because Tower Hill was a non-diverse defendant. Vantage Risk acknowledged that Tower Hill remained a party and was non-diverse, but argued removal was proper because Tower Hill had filed a motion to dismiss in state court (Doc. 18).

What the Court Held

The court began with the baseline rule that “removal statutes are strictly construed, with all doubts resolved in favor of remand.” Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity, and the exception that could apply here—fraudulent joinder—requires the removing defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that there is no possibility the plaintiff can state a claim against the non-diverse defendant, or that the plaintiff fraudulently pleaded jurisdictional facts.

The court concluded that “Vantage Risk has fallen well short of its burden.” The notice of removal made no fraudulent-joinder argument, and the response to the remand motion offered only what the court called a “conclusory suggestion” that Tower Hill was named solely to defeat diversity. The court also observed that the notice of removal lacked Tower Hill’s consent under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A), and that no Local Rule 3.03 disclosure was filed for Tower Hill.

Fees, Costs, and Show-Cause Order

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), fees and costs are appropriate when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. The court found that standard met, writing that Vantage Risk “deliberately and misleadingly omitted Tower Hill from its notice of removal.” It cited a 2024 Middle District case, AUM Realty II FL, LLC v. Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Co., No. 2:24-cv-635, 2024 WL 4045379 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2024), as an earlier instance involving a Tower Hill entity.

The parties must confer on the amount of fees by December 11, 2026. Separately, by November 20, 2026, two Vantage Risk attorneys must show cause why they should not reimburse the court for time spent on the removal and be referred to the local grievance committee for investigation. Those are orders to show cause, not findings of misconduct.

What This Means If You Have a Florida Property Insurance Claim

This order is a single trial-court ruling on a procedural question. It does not decide whether Royal Foot’s policy covers its loss, and the order does not describe the type of property or the underlying claim. It does not bind other courts. With those limits, a few practical points follow for policyholders in a coverage dispute:

• Forum can be contested. Insurers sometimes move a state-court suit to federal court. Whether that works depends on the facts, including who is named as a defendant and where each party is a citizen.
• Who handled your claim may matter. The order describes a policy administrator and adjuster affiliated with the carrier. Keep every letter, email, and estimate that shows which entity underwrote, administered, and adjusted your claim.
• Procedure can add months. A removal and remand fight happens before the court reaches whether the insurer owed the claim. Policyholders should expect procedural motions and calendar every court deadline.
• Preserve your file. Keep your policy, denial or underpayment letters, photos, contractor estimates, and all communications with the carrier.

Each claim turns on its own policy language and facts, and nothing in this ruling suggests a particular result in any other case. If your Florida property claim has been denied or underpaid, see our denied insurance claim guide, browse our Case Law & Industry Insights page, or request a free case evaluation. This article is general information based on the court’s November 6, 2026 order and is not legal advice.