Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. A.B.
21-11221
| 11th Cir. | Mar 29, 2022Background:
- A.B. was sexually abused and photographed by David Barrow as a child; Barrow later pleaded guilty to human trafficking and was imprisoned.
- A.B. sued Barrow in Alabama state court and sought Barrow's insurance information to pursue recovery from any insurer.
- Nationwide filed a federal declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it owed Barrow no duty to defend or indemnify him; A.B. was named as a defendant and appeared in federal court.
- The district court dismissed Nationwide's duty-to-indemnify claim as unripe, granted summary judgment holding Nationwide owed no duty to defend Barrow, and denied A.B.’s Rule 59(e) motion.
- A.B. appealed; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed jurisdictional standing and whether a tort claimant may appeal a declaratory judgment that an insurer has no duty to defend.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a tort claimant (A.B.) has Article III appellate standing to challenge a declaratory judgment that an insurer owes no duty to defend the insured | A.B.: the no-duty-to-defend judgment injures her by weakening the insured's defense, risking preclusive or practical effects on future recovery and thus she is aggrieved and may appeal | Nationwide: the duty to defend concerns only insurer-insured obligations; a ruling that no defense is owed does not injure the tort claimant and thus she lacks appellate standing | Held: A.B. lacks appellate standing; the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, following reasoning that a duty-to-defend ruling does not personally injure the tort claimant |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270 (1941) (recognizes a controversy between insurer and injured claimant over insurer obligations under policy)
- Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Makover, 654 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (tort claimant has standing to appeal a declaratory judgment denying coverage as to indemnity)
- Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Reinke, 43 F.3d 1152 (7th Cir. 1995) (holds a tort claimant lacks standing to appeal a no-duty-to-defend ruling)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wayne Cnty., 760 F.2d 689 (6th Cir. 1985) (duty to defend affects only insurer-insured relationship; third parties lack standing to enforce it)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (standing requires a concrete, particularized injury traceable to challenged conduct and redressable by relief sought)
- Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2003) (appellate standing requires the appellant to be aggrieved by the judgment)
- United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2019) (jurisdictional questions, including standing, are reviewed de novo and must be considered sua sponte)