7    exceeds $5 million.”) Defendant here alleges that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds  $5,000,000. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 8.) Assuming that Defendant’s valuations caused an  average downward adjustment of 8.5%, as Plaintiff alleges here, Defendant estimates that “the  difference between the adjusted and the actual total loss valuations is $57,496,140.76.”6 (Id.; 1-2  at PageID 31.) Defendant’s allegations therefore satisfy the requirements for subject matter  jurisdiction under CAFA.  A federal court with diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 “must apply the law of  the forum state, Tennessee, in interpreting the parties’ contract and its provisions.”Glob.  Aerospace, Inc. v. Phillips & Jordan, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-105-PLR-CCS, 2015 WL 5514627, at  *2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 17, 2015). So the Court applies Tennessee law to the parties’ insurance  contract.  LEGAL ANALYSIS  I.  Plaintiff’s Claims Survive a 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss    A. Legal Standard of a 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss    Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may, as Defendant did here, challenge the Court’s subject  matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d  320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990). When the defendant makes such a motion, the plaintiff bears the  burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction.Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg’l Transit Auth.,  895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 1990).    6 In her amended complaint, Plaintiff states that the class’s aggregate compensatory damages are below CAFA’s jurisdictional threshold. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 14–15.) But after Defendant alleged compensatory damages far beyond the $5 million statutory amount, Plaintiff told the Court during a status conference that it did not contest jurisdiction under CAFA. As a result, the Court accepts Defendant’s alleged amount in controversy.  Case 2:20-cv-02482-TLP-cgc Document 52 Filed 11/17/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID 423