PARKER MCCAY, P.A. v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al
Filing
11
OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 10/23/2012. (tf, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
(Doc. No. 7)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_____________________________________
:
PARKER MCCAY, P.A.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
Civil No. 1:12-cv-02971 (RBK/KMW)
v.
:
:
OPINION
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
:
COMPANY, HARTFORD CASUALTY
:
INSURANCE COMPANY, and TWIN
:
CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________ :
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendants Hartford Fire Insurance
Company (“Hartford Fire”), Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (“Hartford Casualty”), and
Twin City Fire Insurance Company (“Twin City”) (collectively “Defendants”) to dismiss the
complaint of Plaintiff Parker McCay, P.A. (“Plaintiff”). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff
has alleged facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief, the motion will be denied.
I.
Background
Plaintiff, a New Jersey law firm, purchased a Commercial General Liability Policy from
Hartford Fire and an Umbrella Liability Policy from Hartford Casualty in 2009. Compl. ¶ 8-9. In
addition, Plaintiff carried a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Policy with Twin
City. Id. ¶ 10.
In December of 2009, one of Plaintiff’s former employees, Sheila Ciemniecki, filed a
lawsuit against Plaintiff. Id. ¶12-13. Plaintiff called upon all three Defendants both to defend
Plaintiff in the action and to indemnify Plaintiff were Ciemniecki to prevail in her lawsuit. Twin
City advised Plaintiff that it would neither defend nor indemnify Plaintiff or its CFO, Raymond
DiSanto, for any of Ciemniecki’s claims. Id. ¶ 23. Hartford Fire and Hartford Casualty, on the
other hand, agreed to defend Plaintiff subject to a reservation of certain rights, and they have
since been providing that defense. Id. ¶ 24; Pl. Opp. Br. at 6. But they refused to indemnify
Plaintiff for any of Ciemniecki’s claims should the need arise, asserting that those claims fall
within an exception to coverage. Compl. ¶ 25. Plaintiff then filed this suit, asking the Court to
declare that under each of the three insurance policies in question, all three Defendants are
obligated to both defend and indemnify Plaintiff for the Ciemniecki litigation. The Defendants
moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that Plaintiff is already receiving a full defense
and thus has no damages, and additionally that Plaintiff’s claims are premature.
II.
Discussion
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss an action for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give
rise to an entitlement of relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
A. Ripeness
Where, as here, a Plaintiff brings an action in federal court seeking a declaratory
judgment, the court is empowered to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2201. At the same time, however, federal courts must not hear
cases that are unripe for adjudication. The ripeness doctrine, which involves both prudential
concerns and the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the Constitution, holds that
courts must dismiss a case as unripe unless a “dispute is sufficiently concrete[.]”
Pittsburgh
Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local Union No. 66., 580 F.3d 185,
190 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). Declaratory judgment actions often present
difficult ripeness issues “because declaratory judgments are typically sought before a completed
harm has occurred. Id. In this Circuit, a court should consider three things when determining
ether a declaratory judgment claim presents a ripe controversy: “the adversity of the interest of
the parties, the conclusiveness of the judicial judgment, and the practical help, or utility, of that
judgment.” Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 912 F.2d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 1990).
Defendants argue that they have no duty to indemnify Plaintiff since the underlying
litigation remains unresolved and Plaintiff is not yet “legally obligated” to pay damages. Def.
Br. at 13. But a plaintiff “need not suffer a completed harm to establish adversity of interest of
the parties.” Pittsburgh Mack, 580 F. 3d at 190 (internal citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has
alleged that Defendants informed it that Defendants would not indemnify it for the Ciemniecki
litigation. And Plaintiff alleged that Twin City breached its contract obligation by refusing to
defend or indemnify Plaintiff. In a motion to dismiss, the Court assumes the veracity of those
allegations. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Accordingly, even though the Ciemniecki litigation is
unresolved, Plaintiff has alleged that it has both a present right to rely on Twin City to defend it
in the Ciemniecki litigation as well as an unperfected but nonetheless defined right to indemnity
from all Defendants if it were to lose the case. These allegations are sufficient to show adversity
of the interest of the parties for the purposes of a declaratory judgment action.
In evaluating “the conclusiveness of the judicial judgment,” the Court must “determine
whether judicial action at the present time would amount to more than an advisory opinion based
on a hypothetical set of facts.” Pittsburgh Mack, 580 F. 3d at 190 (internal citations omitted).
Here, the facts are not hypothetical.
Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to defense and
indemnification for the Ciemniecki litigation under the policies issued to it by the Defendants.
“Declaratory suits to determine the scope of insurance coverage have often been brought
independently of the underlying claims albeit the exact sums to which the insurer may be liable
to indemnify depend on the outcome of the underlying suits.” ACandS, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and
Sur. Co., 666 F.2d 819, 823 (3d Cir. 1981). Hartford Fire and Hartford Casualty’s contention that
it has no duty to indemnify Plaintiff at this time is inapposite. The declaratory judgment in this
case will be conclusive because it will establish whether Twin City is obligated to defend
Plaintiff to some extent, and it will establish who, if anyone, is obligated to indemnify Plaintiff
for any potential judgment in the Ciemniecki litigation.
Third, the Court looks to the practical help, or utility, of a declaratory judgment. See
Step-Saver, 912 F.2d at 947. Like in Pittsburgh Mack, determining Plaintiff’s insurance coverage
is practical and useful, since at the end of the declaratory judgment action, Plaintiff will know
whether or not it can rely on any of the Defendants for indemnification in the Ciemniecki
litigation. See Pittsburgh Mack, 580 F.3d at 192. Any of the parties could use the judgment to
enforce their rights in a later proceeding.
B. Damages
Twin City also claims that Plaintiff has no damages from its refusal to defend the
Ciemniecki litigation, since Plaintiff is already receiving a full defense from the other
Defendants. Plaintiff responds that under the entire controversy doctrine, it was bound to join
any “transactionally related claims” that might exist as to Defendants for the Ciemniecki
litigation. K-Land Corp No. 28 v. Landis Sewerage Auth., 800 A.2d 861, 868 (N.J. 2002). The
Court agrees that until all of Plaintiff’s rights and entitlements under all of the Defendants’
potentially applicable policies are determined, the damages from Twin City’s refusal to defend
Plaintiff are unknown.
III. Conclusion
Since Plaintiff has stated a plausible and ripe claim for declaratory relief, Defendants’
motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED. An accompanying order shall issue today.
Dated: 10/23/12
/s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?