The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company v. Jones et al

Filing 69

OPINION AND ORDER that: (1) Plaintiff Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company's alternative motion to stay 59 is granted to the extent that this case is stayed as to the no-duty-to-indemnify claim against all defendants as further set out ; (2) Plaintiff Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company's no-duty-to-defend claim against all defendants, except defendants Charles E. Jones, Charles H. Jones, and Penny Jones, appears to be still pending and is thus not stayed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/7/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(jg, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE TRAVELERS HOME AND,
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES E. JONES; et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12cv307-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
It is ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff Travelers Home and Marine Insurance
Company’s alternative motion to stay (doc. no. 59) is
granted to the extent that this case is stayed as to the
no-duty-to-indemnify

claim

against

all

defendants.

Should this declaratory-judgment action become ripe for
adjudication, as set out in this opinion, Travelers may
move to have this court lift the stay.
(2) Plaintiff Travelers Home and Marine Insurance
Company’s no-duty-to-defend claim against all defendants,
except defendants Charles E. Jones, Charles H. Jones, and

Penny Jones, appears to be still pending and is thus not
stayed.

***
One

of

Travelers’s

the

remaining

issues

no-duty-to-indemnify

pending state-court lawsuit.

in
claim

this

case

regarding

is
a

Travelers contends that,

regardless of the ultimate outcome of the state-court
lawsuit, the insurance company has no duty to indemnify
anybody involved.

As the insurance company recognizes,

this court has refused to decide insurance disputes like
this one before because “[the defendants] could prevail
in the underlying lawsuit.

With this result, the issue

of whether [the insurance company] must indemnify [the
defendants] would be moot, and the court would never have
to reach the issue....
concludes

that

the

For these reasons, the court

issue

of

indemnification

is

not

sufficiently ripe to present a ‘case’ or ‘controversy.’”
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Toole, 947 F. Supp. 1557, 1566

2

(M.D. Ala. 1996) (Thompson, J.); see also Nationwide Ins.
v. Zavalis, 52 F.3d 689, 693 (7th Cir. 1995) (“the duty
to indemnify is not ripe for adjudication until the
insured

is

in

fact

held

liable

in

the

underlying

lawsuit”).
Travelers contends that that result should not follow
because this court should instead adopt the approach
taken in Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dapper, LLC, 2010
WL 2925779 (M.D. Ala. July 21, 2010) (Moorer, M.J.).

In

that case, the court began by noting that no-duty-todefend

and

insurance

no-duty-to-indemnify

companies

are

claims

analytically

brought

distinct,

by
and,

there, the former was ripe for adjudication while the
latter

was

not.

Id.

at

3-4.

But,

because

the

substantive analysis required to resolve the ripe claim
likewise resolved the unripe claim, the court elected to
decide the unripe claim anyways.

Id. at 8.

In other

words, the court decided the unripe claim because doing
so was ancillary to another matter properly before the

3

court.
While

However, no such circumstances are present here.
the

court

has

issued

a

judgment

regarding

Travelers’s no-duty-to-defend claim, that judgment was
merely a default one and it did not require the court to
engage

in

any

substantive

analysis.

In

short,

Harleysville is inapposite and that case does not stand
for

the

proposition

that

courts

should

elect

to

adjudicate unripe claims regardless of the circumstances.
The other case Travelers cites, Evanston Ins. Co. v.
Lett, 2012 WL 4927958 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 15, 2012) (Steele,
J.), is no more availing.
Because Travelers’s no-duty-to-indemnify claim is
unripe, this court will not decide it now.
because

this

Declaratory

lawsuit

Judgment

has
Act

been

and

brought

because

the

Morever,
under

the

court

has

discretion under that statute to resolve a matter, the
court will exercise its discretion to decline resolving
the claim.
288

(1995)

See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277,
(because

there

4

is

“nothing

automatic

or

obligatory about the assumption of ‘jurisdiction’ by a
federal court to hear a declaratory judgment action,” a
district court is authorized in the sound exercise of its
discretion

to

stay

or

dismiss

an

action

seeking

a

declaratory judgment before trial) (citation omitted).
In the interest of judicial economy, this case should
be stayed instead of dismissed so that, should the noduty-to-indemnify claim become ripe, it is unnecessary to
file

a

new

complaint,

serve

the

parties

again,

and

otherwise take those steps needed to begin a lawsuit.
DONE, this the 7th day of June, 2013.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE