American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin v. Podgorski, 2:15-cv-00168

On April 10, 2014, Jason Podgorski drove a Ford F-150 owned by James DeWitt; passenger Jill A. Green was injured when the vehicle hit a utility pole.
DeWitt’s insurer, American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, issued the policy covering the truck.
Green sued Podgorski, DeWitt, and Rusty Nail Bar in Indiana state court alleging negligence and dram shop liability; Podgorski defaulted and a damages hearing was scheduled.
Days before the state damages hearing, American Standard filed a federal declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that it owed no indemnity to Podgorski because Podgorski lacked DeWitt’s permission to drive the truck.
American Standard intervened in the state case and sought a stay; the state court allowed intervention but did not stay the proceedings.
Green moved in federal court to dismiss, abstain, or stay the federal declaratory action on the ground that the permission issue is already pending in state court; the federal court granted abstention and stayed the federal action pending resolution of the state case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court should exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory-judgment action when a parallel state proceeding will decide the same factual issue (whether DeWitt permitted Podgorski to drive the truck)	American Standard: federal forum is proper to resolve the single, dispositive permission question; such declaratory actions are common and appropriate	Green: federal action duplicates state proceedings, risks piecemeal litigation, and the permission issue will necessarily be decided in state court; court should abstain or stay	Court: abstention appropriate under Wilton/Brillhart; stayed the federal action pending state-court resolution

Med. Assurance Co. v. Hellman, 610 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2010) (Declaratory Judgment Act is discretionary; district courts may decline jurisdiction)
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) (district courts may stay or dismiss declaratory-judgment actions when parallel state proceedings exist)
Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942) (framework for federal abstention where parallel state proceedings are pending)
Envision Healthcare, Inc. v. Preferred One Ins. Co., 604 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2010) (classic abstention example: declaratory relief sought while parallel state litigation ongoing)
Nationwide Ins. v. Zavalis, 52 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1995) (factors for assessing parallelism and whether to abstain)
Sta-Rite Indus., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 96 F.3d 281 (7th Cir. 1996) (more comprehensive parallel state case weighs against federal jurisdiction)
Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc. v. Carr, 903 F.2d 1154 (7th Cir. 1990) (additional parties in one suit do not by themselves destroy parallelism)
Schering Corp. v. Griffo, 872 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D.N.M. 2012) (parties considered similar for abstention when they possess identity of interests)