Builders Mutual Insurance Comp v. Dragas Management Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cv-00185-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998985093].. [11-1722]

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 12

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1722

BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DRAGAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
DRAGAS ASSOCIATES X, LC; HAMPSHIRES ASSOCIATES, LC,
Counter-Plaintiffs - Appellants,
FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, D.C.,
Defendant - Appellee,
v.
THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY; CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Third Party Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00185-RBS-TEM)

Argued:

October 23, 2012

Decided:

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

November 20, 2012

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 12

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: R. Johan Conrod, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellants.
Danny Mark Howell, SANDS ANDERSON,
PC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: William E.
Spivey,
KAUFMAN
&
CANOLES,
PC,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellants.
Mikhael D. Charnoff, Courtney South Schorr, SANDS
ANDERSON, PC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee Builders Mutual
Insurance Company; John B. Mumford, Jr., Kathryn E. Kransdorf,
HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for
Appellee Firemen's Insurance Company of Washington, D.C.; John
Malloy, ROBINSON & COLE, LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for
Appellees Hanover Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance
Company of America.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 12

PER CURIAM:
This case presents a dispute over several insurers’ duties
to

indemnify

a

general

contractor

for

its

remediation

defective drywall in homes it had constructed.
court granted summary judgment to the insurers.

of

The district
For the reasons

that follow, we must vacate the judgment of the district court
and remand to that court so that it can dismiss the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I.
Between

2005

and

2009,

Dragas

Management

Corporation

(“DMC”) served as general contractor for two developments in
southeastern

Virginia.

DMC

subcontracted

the

procurement and installation for both developments.

drywall
Due to a

shortage of domestic drywall, the subcontractor purchased some
of its drywall from a Chinese facility.

The Chinese drywall was

defective, and contained concentrations of elemental sulfur 375
times greater than that in representative domestic-manufactured
drywall.

The subcontractor installed the Chinese drywall in

seventy-four homes within the two developments.
Over this period of time, DMC held a number of different
insurance

policies

from

two

insurers.

DMC

purchased

a

commercial package policy for February 6, 2006 to February 6,
2007

from

Builder’s

Mutual

Insurance
3

Company,

a

commercial

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 4 of 12

package policy and commercial umbrella policy for February 5,
2007 to February 5, 2008 from Firemen’s Insurance Company, and a
commercial

package

policy

and

commercial

umbrella

policy

March 1, 2008 to March 1, 2009, again from Builders.
policy

contained

commercial

“those

sums

[DMC]

that

general

becomes

liability

legally

for
Each

coverage

obligated

to

for

pay

as

damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which
[the] insurance applies.”
The

Chinese

drywall’s

sulfuric

off-gassing

damaged

metal

fixtures, wiring, and connections within the homes containing
the drywall.

DMC investigated complaints about the damage and

discovered the presence of the Chinese drywall.
February

2009,

executing

DMC

remediation

prepared

a

agreements

remediation
with

Beginning in

plan

individual

and

began

homeowners.

Pursuant to the agreements, DMC agreed to remove and replace the
Chinese

drywall,

replace

all

damaged

metal

components,

pay

relocation expenses, and compensate the homeowners for damages
to personal property.

Neither Builders nor Firemen’s were party

to DMC’s remediation agreements with the homeowners.
When DMC sought indemnification for its remediation costs,
both Builders and Firemen’s denied coverage.
Builders

filed

this

action

against

DMC,

in

On April 23, 2009,
which

it

alleged

federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship
and

sought

a

declaratory

judgment
4

that

it

owed

no

duty

to

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

indemnify

DMC

Filed: 11/20/2012

for

its

Pg: 5 of 12

Chinese

drywall

remediation

costs.

Builders also named Firemen’s as a defendant on the theory that,
if the court found that Builders owed DMC a duty to indemnify,
the

court

could

insurers.

allocate

the

costs

equitably

between

the

On May 21, Firemen’s answered and filed a cross-claim

against DMC.

On June 22, DMC answered Builders’ complaint and

Firemen’s crossclaim, and filed a counterclaim against Builders
and a crossclaim against Firemen’s.
third-party
Hanover
America.

complaint

Insurance

against

Company

its

and

On July 7, DMC filed a

subcontractors’

Citizens

Insurance

insurers

--

Company

of

Nine months later, on April 7, 2010, Dragas Associates

X, LC and Hampshire Associates, LC -- the developers of the
neighborhoods affected by the defective drywall -- joined the
case as counterclaim plaintiffs.
After more than two years of litigation, the district court
granted summary judgment to the insurers.

The district court

held that the policies’ commercial general liability provisions
did

not

cover

DMC’s

remediation

costs

because

DMC

made

the

remediation voluntarily, rather than under a legal obligation to
pay.

DMC,

Dragas

Associates,

and

(collectively, “Dragas”) noted an appeal.

Hampshires

Associates

While the case was on

appeal, Dragas moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

We delayed ruling on that motion to allow

oral argument on both the jurisdictional motion and the merits.
5

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 6 of 12

II.
We consider subject matter jurisdiction de novo, regardless
of whether a party has raised, or the district court addressed,
the issue.

See Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George

Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir. 2005).

In its motion

to dismiss, Dragas argues that we lack diversity jurisdiction
over this case.

Dragas’ argument proceeds in two parts.

First,

Dragas contends that we must realign Firemen’s as a plaintiff in
the case, and that such realignment destroys complete diversity
because Firemen’s (a realigned plaintiff) and DMC (a defendant)
are both citizens of Virginia.

Second, Dragas contends that

Firemen’s is a required and indispensable party to the case, and
thus we cannot dismiss Firemen’s to save diversity jurisdiction.
We take up each argument in turn.
A.
“Diversity
federal

courts

jurisdiction
by

the

cannot

parties’

plaintiffs and who defendants.”

own

be

conferred

determination

upon
of

who

the
are

City of Indianapolis v. Chase

Nat’l Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 69 (1941).

Instead, courts must “look

beyond the pleadings, and arrange the parties according to their
sides in the dispute.”
To

determine

when

to

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
realign

“principal purpose” test.

parties,

we

apply

the

two-step

U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. A & S Mfg.

Co. (Fidelity), 48 F.3d 131, 133 (4th Cir. 1995).
6

First, we

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 7 of 12

determine the primary issue in the controversy by considering
the

“plaintiff’s

principal

purpose

for

filing

its

suit.”

Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 337 (4th Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Second, “we align the

parties according to their positions with respect to the primary
issue.”

Id.

complaint,

If the alignment differs from that in plaintiff’s

we

look

to

whether

diversity

jurisdiction

still

exists.
In Fidelity, an insurer filed a declaratory judgment action
against
that

it

its

insured

owed

environmental

no

and

duty

several

to

liabilities,

co-insurers

indemnify
and,

the

second,

alleging,

insured
that

for
if

indemnify, the co-insurers owed a duty of contribution.
at 132.

first,
certain

it

must

48 F.3d

The district court applied the principal purpose test

and realigned all of the insurers as plaintiffs and the insured
as

the

sole

defendant.

The

realignment

destroyed

complete

diversity, and the district court dismissed the action for lack
of jurisdiction.

Id. at 132.

We affirmed.

In so doing, we

agreed with the district court that “any disputes existing among
the insurers regarding contribution are ancillary to the primary
issue of the duty to indemnify.”

Id. at 134.

Because all of

the insurers shared the principal purpose of avoiding liability
to the insured, realignment of the parties was required.

7

Id.

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 8 of 12

We find the case at hand indistinguishable from Fidelity.
Builders’ principal purpose in filing its action was to avoid a
duty to indemnify DMC for its Chinese drywall remediation costs.
Builders

and

Firemen’s

share

this

principal

purpose

of

altogether avoiding liability to DMC; any disputes between the
insurers are merely “ancillary to the primary issue of the duty
to indemnify” and “hypothetical” until the insurers’ liabilities
are determined.

Fidelity, 48 F.3d at 134.

Therefore, we must

realign Firemen’s as a plaintiff.
B.
Our

realignment

of

Firemen’s

as

a

plaintiff

destroys

complete diversity, for both Firemen’s and defendant DMC are
citizens of Virginia.
Firemen’s

--

dismissing

argue

Firemen’s

Nonetheless, the insurers -- including
that
from

we

can

the

save

our

case.

jurisdiction

Dragas

counters

by
that

Firemen’s is a required and indispensable party under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 19, and thus cannot be dismissed.
We may dismiss a dispensable non-diverse party to preserve
our jurisdiction.
652

(4th

Cir.

“emphasize[d]

Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648,
2006).

that

such

However,
authority

the

Supreme

should

be

Court

has

exercised

sparingly,” with due consideration of “whether the dismissal of
[the] nondiverse party will prejudice any of the parties in the
litigation.”

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S.
8

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

826, 837 (1989).
party

from

a

Pg: 9 of 12

Moreover, in order to dismiss a non-diverse

case,

we

must

be

satisfied

indispensable party under Rule 19.

that

it

is

not

an

Eriline Co., 440 F.3d at

652.
Dragas relies on Schlumberger Industries, Inc. v. National
Surety

Corp.,

36

F.3d

1274

(4th

Cir.

Firemen’s is an indispensable party.

1994),

to

argue

that

In Schlumberger, we held

that when multiple insurers issue policies covering the same
conduct, but for different time periods, and those policies are
potentially implicated by an insured’s environmental remediation
efforts,

all

of

the

insurers

are

required

and

indispensable

parties to a suit regarding any individual insurer’s coverage.
Id. at 1286.

We emphasized that allowing cases to proceed with

fewer than all of the insurers subjected the insured to the
practical possibility of whipsaw where the insured could “wind
up

with

less

than

full

coverage

even

entitled to full coverage.”

Id.

three

presented

questions

might

result

adjudication:
provide

that
in

a

--

if

whipsaw

though

it

was

legally

In particular, we identified

of

to

different

prejudicially

courts

--

inconsistent

(1) the legal question of whether the policies

coverage

at

all;

(2)

the

legal

question

of

what

constitutes a “trigger” for the coverage to attach; and (3) the
factual

question

occurred.

of

when

--

if

at

all

--

such

a

trigger

The risks of both legal and factual whipsaw strongly
9

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 10 of 12

influenced our determination that all of the insurers were both
required

and

indispensable

to

individual insurer’s coverage.

any

adjudication

issued

policies

to

an

Id. at 1287-88.

Schlumberger controls in this case.
both

as

with

Firemen’s and Builders

commercial

general

liability

provisions covering the same conduct by DMC, but for different
time

periods,

and

both

insurers’

policies

implicated by DMC’s remediation efforts.
separate

litigation

indemnify

DMC

as

would

to

pose

Builders
threats

and

of

are

potentially

As in Schlumberger,
Firemen’s

both

legal

duties

and

to

factual

whipsaw.
All

of

Hanover

Schlumberger fail.
court

granted

legal

question

and

attempts

to

distinguish

First, they argue that because the district

summary
and

Firemen’s

judgment,

negates

emphasized in Schlumberger.

the

this

case

risk

of

presents
factual

a

purely

whipsaw

so

However, in doing so they ignore

the fact that Schlumberger also involved an appeal from a grant
of

summary

judgment

for

the

insurers.

The

district

court’s

dispositive legal conclusions did not palliate our concerns of
potential factual whipsaw in Schlumberger, and they do not here. *

*

A week after oral argument in this case, the Supreme Court
of Virginia decided Travco Insurance Co. v. Ward (No. 120347)
(Va. Nov. 1, 2012). In a post-argument filing, Builders argues
that the Travco decision disposes of the merits claim in this
case.
Be that as it may, the existence of a dispositive state
(Continued)
10

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 11 of 12

The insurers also argue that we should consider issues of
finality and judicial economy before dismissing a case filed
over three years ago that has gone to final judgment.
again,

they

ignore

Schlumberger’s

procedural

Once

posture.

In

Schlumberger the case had also gone to final judgment, and we
nonetheless dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction over six years
after its original filing.

Finally, and relatedly, the insurers

present

regarding

several

Firemen’s
such

arguments

realignment

thinly

veiled

and

waiver

Dragas’

indispensability
arguments

are

failure
earlier;

ineffectual.

to

raise

however,
For

a

party may question subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of
litigation, even for the first time on appeal.

Constantine, 411

F.3d at 480.
Therefore, we apply Schlumberger and hold that Firemen’s is
a required and indispensable party to this case; accordingly, we
cannot

dismiss

Firemen’s

from

the

case

to

preserve

our

jurisdiction.

decision regarding the merits does not affect our jurisdictional
analysis.
Moreover, if Travco is as dispositive as Builders
suggests, Builders’ burden in relitigating this case -- if
refiled in state court at all -- will be trivial indeed.

11

Appeal: 11-1722

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/20/2012

Pg: 12 of 12

III.
For the reasons set forth above, we vacate the judgment of
the district court and remand to that court so that it can
dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

VACATED AND REMANDED

12