Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. Lloyds TSB General Leasing (No. 20) Ltd.
774 F. Supp. 2d 431
D. Conn.2011Background
- This is a declaratory judgment action seeking to determine rights and liabilities arising from a helicopter crash on the Atlantic, with Sikorsky requesting a Connecticut forum and to enjoin Canadian action.
- Sikorsky sold and Sikorsky CHC entered into a 2004 S-92 helicopter sales contract; CHC later_ASSIGNED rights to Lloyds 20 via a 2006 novation, with Lloyds 20 to hire the helicopter to CHII.
- The helicopter crashed on March 12, 2009; Lloyds 20 and Cougar are insured by multiple Lloyd's syndicates and hull insurers under policy AZ007808.
- Canadian action was filed June 24, 2010 against Sikorsky, HSI, and the Canadian Minister of Transport, alleging tort and contract claims related to the crash.
- Sikorsky filed the present TAC for declaratory relief June 16, 2010; the Canadian action proceeded with LeBlanc, J., denying Sikorsky's stay and forum concerns.
- The district court must decide whether to exercise DJA jurisdiction and whether to retain the action given pending Canadian proceedings and potential admiralty claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Sikorsky contends complete diversity exists among parties. | Defendants contend Lloyd's syndicate underwriters prevent complete diversity due to identifiable non-diverse underwriters. | Diversity not established; Lloyd's lead underwriter citizenship prevents complete diversity. |
| Whether admiralty jurisdiction provides a basis for jurisdiction | Sikorsky argues tort claims in Canada fall within US admiralty jurisdiction. | Defendants acknowledge admiralty relevance but argue limited reach for contract-like claims. | Admiralty jurisdiction exists for the tort claims; it provides some basis for jurisdiction in the DJA action. |
| Whether the court should retain or dismiss the DJA action | Sikorsky seeks to adjudicate rights in this forum to avoid Canadian litigation. | Defendants urge dismissal or abstention due to forum congestion and better Canadian forum. | Court declines to retain jurisdiction and grants dismissal; better and more effective remedy lies in Canadian proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 356 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003) (Dow Jones factors guide exercise of declaratory relief discretion)
- Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1985) (DJA is an enabling act; equitable considerations govern discretion)
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1985) (DJA discretion acknowledged; not an absolute right)
- Squibb I, 160 F.3d 925 (2d Cir. 1998) (Lloyd's lead underwriter vs. Names; complete diversity principle for Lloyd's syndicates)
- Squibb II, 241 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (Lead underwriter must satisfy diversity; pleadings must recast to rely on individual capacity)
- Advani Enterprises, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 1998) (Early framework for Lloyd's syndicate diversity analysis)
- Public Service Comm. of Utah v. Wycoff Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 237 (1952) (Maritime context informs admiralty jurisdiction application)
- Preston v. Frantz, 11 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 1993) (Helicopter maritime torts can fall within admiralty jurisdiction)
- Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) (Aircraft torts with maritime connections can satisfy admiralty jurisdiction)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937) (DJA is procedural; jurisdictional questions controlled by federal issues)