Cincinnati Insurance Company v. All Plumbing, Inc.
421 U.S. App. D.C. 93
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Cincinnati issued a commercial policy to All Plumbing with primary and excess liability coverage for claims from Mar 3, 2006 to Mar 3, 2007.
- Two TCPA class actions alleged unsolicited fax advertisements; Love the Beer, Inc. (filed Sept 14, 2010) and FDS Restaurant, Inc. (filed Dec 2, 2011).
- Cincinnati reserved its rights with respect to the Love the Beer case but did not notify All Plumbing; it later claimed possible noncoverage in the FDS action.
- District court initially granted summary judgment against Cincinnati for failure to renew reservation; later allowed defenses under excess liability but unresolved merits.
- The district court held there was no final decision on excess liability rights; the district court’s decisions were not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, so the appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- This appeal concerns whether Cincinnati’s defenses under the excess liability provision can be reviewed and whether the overall declaratory judgment ruling is final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s decision is final for appeal. | Cincinnati argues the unresolved excess liability issues prevent finality, so appeal is premature. | FDS contends a final decision exists because the primary issues are decided and further relief would be unnecessary. | No final decision under §1291; appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether Cincinnati waived defenses under the primary liability provision by not reserving rights. | Cincinnati reserved rights in Love the Beer case, but not in FDS, so defenses should be barred under the primary provision. | Failure to reserve rights precludes defenses under the primary provision. | The lack of complete reservation affects primary defenses but does not resolve excess liability defenses; broader finality remains unresolved. |
| Whether TCPA claims are covered under the excess liability provision. | Excess coverage should apply if primary coverage is exhausted or inapplicable to TCPA claims. | TCPA claims may not fall within excess liability if not within ‘occurrence’ or ‘personal and advertising injury.’ | Undetermined on the merits; excess liability defenses remain unresolved, contributing to lack of finality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517 (1988) (final decision for appeal requires resolution of all claims and rights)
- Blue v. D.C. Pub. Sch., 764 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (finality under Rule 54(b) depends on whether all issues are adjudicated)
- United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 686 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (principles for finality and review in multi-claim actions)
- Robinson-Reeder v. Am. Council on Educ., 571 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (procedural finality considerations in multi-claim contexts)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737 (1976) (finality and review in declaratory judgment actions)
- Salus Corp. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 478 A.2d 1067 (Del. 1984) (duty to indemnify depends on true facts)
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) (staying declaratory actions pending parallel state proceedings)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (stay or dismissal considerations in parallel proceedings)
- Carter v. District of Columbia, 795 F.2d 116 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (equities of consistent judgments across defendants)