COLUMBIAN FINANCIAL CORP. v. BancInsure, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12474
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- BancInsure appeals a declaratory judgment in favor of Columbian Financial and former director McCaffree that a claims-made D&O policy covered claims through May 11, 2010.
- Columbian's receivership by Kansas Banking Commissioner and FDIC appointment occurred on August 22, 2008, stopping active banking operations.
- Notices of potential claims from the FDIC and others were received by BancInsure within 30 days of August 22, 2008.
- District court held the policy covered the McGowan claim; BancInsure sought reversal on jurisdiction and scope of coverage under § X.E and related provisions.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction due to no ongoing actual controversy at judgment and mootness arguments.
- The court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment; Judge Gorsuch concurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction | BancInsure contends there was a live dispute over coverage and cessation language § X.E. | Insureds argue there was no continuing actual controversy by judgment; claims were resolved. | No jurisdiction exists; case dismissed on mootness/absence of live controversy. |
| Whether an actual controversy existed at filing or continued until judgment | There was a dispute over coverage during a receivership and potential future claims. | Any controversy dissipated once BancInsure conceded coverage for the identified claim; future claims were speculative. | No actual controversy remained at judgment; district court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Whether the policy terms § X.E and IX.B govern coverage upon receivership and timing of notice | Notice within 30 days after end of policy or extended period could trigger coverage. | Coverage turns on the cessation of active banking and claims made during policy period; future claims uncertain. | Question resolved in favor of lack of live dispute; mootness foreclosed declaratory relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2007) (actual controversy requires immediacy and reality)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1937) (insurer may file for declaratory judgment when controversy is mature)
- Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1969) (live grievance required for jurisdiction)
- Rabinowitz v. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1964) (ripe issues require concrete facts)
- Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1965) (need specifics of travel for declaratory relief)
- Coffman v. Breeze Corp., Inc., 323 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1945) (no justiciable question without concrete dispute)
- Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1948) (ripe declaratory actions require actual rights in issue)
- Wycoff Co., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah, 344 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1952) (disagreement must be fixed and final to grant relief)
- Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1998) (single-issue declaratory relief cannot resolve broader dispute)
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 68 F.3d 409 (11th Cir. 1995) (anticipatory declaratory relief insufficient when no concrete dispute)