Northland Insurance v. Top Rank Trucking of Kissimmee, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131004
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Northland issued a commercial auto policy to Top Rank Trucking of Kissimmee, Inc.
- Weng and Medina, as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Leslie L. Rojas, sued Top Rank and Hines in state court for Rojas's death arising from a pedestrian collision.
- Northland is not a party to the state-court action and seeks a federal declaratory judgment regarding its potential obligations under the policy.
- The declaratory action requests: (i) no indemnity obligation for claims arising from Rojas's death; (ii) no duty to defend; and (iii) no MCS-90 suretyship obligation, though relief on MCS-90 is not explicitly sought.
- Weng and Medina moved to dismiss the federal action under Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., arguing lack of jurisdiction or improper use of declaratory relief.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, determined it would exercise jurisdiction, and proceeded with the declaratory judgment action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory action | Northland argues for federal jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act and Roach factors. | Weng/Medina contend dismissal under Brillhart/Motion to abstain. | Court exercises jurisdiction; Brillhart factors not controlling here. |
| Whether Northland has indemnity or defense obligations to Hines/Top Rank for Rojas's death | Northland seeks declarations that no indemnity or defense duties exist. | Defense arguments focus on staying out pending state case and avoid federal intrusion. | Declaratory action to determine insurer's duties may proceed; no indemnity/defense duty determination issued yet. |
| Whether Northland has MCS-90 suretyship obligations | Northland argues no MCS-90 obligation arising from Rojas's death. | MCS-90 issue is not central to the state action and is not requested for relief. | MCS-90 issue remains within the declaratory action framework; not resolved as a separate ruling here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1942) (Declaratory judgments are discretionary; not mandatory)
- Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2005) (establishes Roach guidepost factors for exercising jurisdiction)
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1995) (unfounded federal jurisdiction unless beneficial to complete resolution)
- Roach, 411 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2005) (guidepost factors balancing federal and state interests in DJ actions)
- Coregis Ins. Co. v. McCollum, 955 F. Supp. 120 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (permits DJ action where insurer not party to underlying state action and issues not resolved there)
- Smithers Constr., Inc. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (allows DJ action where no parallel state court litigation on the same issues)