Federal Court Abstains from Declaratory Judgment Action in Favor of Underlying State Court Proceeding

A New Jersey federal court has abstained from exercising jurisdiction over a removed insurance coverage declaratory judgment action where the underlying action was ongoing in state court. Owen v. Hartford Ins. Co., 2014 WL 2737842 (D.N.J. June 17, 2014).  The court did so because the underlying action could have been consolidated with the coverage action, even though the insured had not yet moved to consolidate the two actions at the time of removal.  The opinion can be found here.

An officer of a local service organization allegedly crashed a car into a building, injuring an employee working in the building.  The employee brought a tort claim against the officer in New Jersey state court.  The officer filed a separate declaratory judgment action in state court, seeking a declaration that the organization’s D&O carrier owed coverage.  After the carrier removed the case to federal court, the officer sought to remand the case back to state court.  The officer argued that, had the carrier not removed the case to federal court, he would have moved to consolidate the insurance coverage action with the underlying proceeding, and the federal court should thus abstain from jurisdiction.

The court decided to abstain from hearing the declaratory action and remanded the case to state court.  Citing Third Circuit precedent, the court stated that it should give “substantial weight” to the presumption that it should abstain from jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action if a parallel state proceeding existed.  The court noted that it was “uncontroversial for New Jersey courts to consolidate an underlying personal injury action with a declaratory [coverage] action.”  Thus, because the insurance issues could “quite clearly” be adjudicated in the underlying litigation, the underlying litigation constituted a parallel proceeding.  The court then held that declining jurisdiction would best serve the interests of avoiding “duplicative” litigation.

Categories

Wiley Executive Summary

Sign up for updates

Wiley Rein LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek