American Safety Indemnity Company v. T. H. Taylor, Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER setting the 64 MOTION to Alter Judgment 63 Judgment for submission, without oral argument, as further set out; directing plaintiff to file a brief addressing federal concerns, as further set out, by 5/26/2011; directing defendant to file briefs by 6/3/2011. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 5/17/2011. (br, )

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

AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY
COMPANY, an insurance
company incorporated in
the State of Oklahoma,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
T.H. TAYLOR, INC., et al
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:10cv48-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
It is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment
(doc.

no.

64)

is

set

for

submission,

without

oral

argument, on June 3, 2011.
(2) It may be that a state court could address the
plaintiff’s duty-to-indemnify claim.
motion,

the

plaintiff

does

not

However, in its

address

two

federal

concerns raised in the court’s opinion when the court
states that “a declaration is not only inappropriate
under the Declaratory Judgment Act but also because a

‘case’ or ‘controversy’ is lacking.”

American Safety

Indemnity Company v. T.H. Taylor, Inc., 2011 WL 1188433,
*6 (M.D. Ala. March 29, 2011) (citing

Auto-Owners Ins.

Co. v. Toole, 947 F.Supp. 1557, 1565-66 (M.D. Ala. 1996)
(Thompson,

J.)):

The

first

concern

is

whether

the

plaintiff’s duty-to-indemnify claim presents a ‘case or
controversy.’ See Nationwide Insurance 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”).

The second is

whether, because this lawsuit has been brought under the
Declaratory

Judgment

Act

and

because

the

court

has

discretion under that statute to resolve a matter, the
court should exercise its discretion not to resolve the
plaintiff’s duty-to-indemnify claim even if the case
presents a case or controversy.

See Wilton v. Seven

Falls Company, 515 U.S. 277, 288 (l995) (because there is
“nothing automatic or obligatory about the assumption of
‘jurisdiction’ by a federal court to hear a declaratory

2

judgment action,” a district court is authorized in the
sound exercise of its discretion, to stay or dismiss an
action

seeking

a

(citation omitted).

declaratory

judgment

before

trial)

The plaintiff should file a brief

addressing these two federal concerns by May 26, 2011.
(3) The defendants are to file briefs by June 3,
2011.
DONE, this the 17th day of May, 2011.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE