Northfield Ins Co v. The Women & Child ( 1997 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50618
Summary Calendar
NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
VERSUS
THE WOMEN & CHILDREN’S RESOURCE CENTER, INC., doing business as
The Family Conflict Center,
Defendant-Appellee
JAN ZARAZINSKI,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(SA-96-CV-624)
April 15, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment action.
Northfield Insurance Company (“Northfield”) filed its original
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
1
complaint alleging that Jan Zarazinski (“Zarazinski”) had sued
Women & Children’s Resource Center, Inc. (“WCRC”) in a Texas state
court, that Northfield issued a policy of liability insurance to
WCRC, but that the insurance policy did not cover the claim or
damages sought by Zarazinski. Northfield sought a declaratory
judgment that it has no duty to defend WCRC in the suit brought by
Zarazinski or to indemnify WCRC in the event of an adverse
judgment. Four days after Northfield filed its declaratory
judgment suit, the district court issued an order advising
Northfield that it questioned whether this suit presented a
justiciable controversy and whether abstention would be proper, and
invited Northfield to brief these issues. After briefing, the
district court dismissed the declaratory judgment action,
concluding that “this matter should be dismissed either because no
justiciable controversy exists or under the abstention doctrine.”
We review the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action under
an abuse of discretion standard. Rowan Companies, Inc. v. Griffin,
876 F.2d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1989).
A complaint requesting a declaration of an insurer’s duty to
defend a pending liability lawsuit presents a justiciable
controversy. Maryland Cas. Co v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S.
270, 270-273 (1941). The district court’s conclusion that no
justiciable controversy exists is therefore error.
Further, a district court abuses its discretion when it does
2
not address and balance “the purposes of the Declaratory Judgement
Act and the factors relevant to the abstention doctrine on the
record.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation,
Inc., 996 F.2d 774, 778 (5th Cir. 1993). In Travelers, we listed
six factors that a district court must consider on the record,
although the district court is free to consider additional factors.
Id. The Order requesting briefing indicates that the district
court inquiry focused on whether Texas courts provide an adequate
alternative for resolution of the dispute. It is not clear what,
if any, of the Travelers factors the district court actually
considered in dismissing this suit. Because the district court did
not consider all of the relevant factors, we hold that it abused
its discretion in dismissing the suit. See id. at 779.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3