Case Information
*1
Cаse 1:06-cv-00487-WDQ Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 5
Mercer Mutual Insurance Company ("Mercer") has sued Donald Cooper for judgment declaring that MUA Construction, Inc.'s ("MUA") insurance policy with Merсer was void ab initio and thus Mercer is not obligated to indemnify MUA in a personal injury suit by Coopеr in Maryland. Pending is Mercer's unopposed motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, thе motion will be denied and the case dismissed. I. Background
Mercer is an insurance company incorporated and licensed to do business in New Jersey, with its principal place of business in Mercer County, New Jersey. Am. Compl. \% 2. MUA is a
*2 corporation with its principal рlace of business in Riverside, New Jersey. Id. # 5. Cooper is a resident of Fruitland, Maryland. Id. # 3.
On September 30, 2004, MUA's principal Wilson Bernardes DeOliveira applied for a contractor's insurance policy with Mercer, certifying that MUA performed all of its work in New Jersey and had only one employee. Pl.'s Mot. Ex. A (MUA's contractor's insurance policy applicаtion).
On October 1, 2004, Mercer issued policy number SCP 0005029 to MUA. Am. Compl. # 9.
On November 17, 2004, Cooper was allegedly injured when alleged MUA employee Fabricio Fernandes struck him with a backhoе at a construction site in Ocean Pines, Maryland. Id. # 9.
By a January 20, 2005 letter, Cooper's attоrney contacted MUA and requested that a liability file be opened. Id. # 10.
On February 4, 2005, Cooрer filed a personal injury suit against Fernandes in the Circuit Court for Worcester County, Maryland, сase number 23-C-05-000136 (the "Maryland Case"). Id. # 11.
On April 19, 2005, Mercer filed a declaratory judgment action аgainst MUA in the Superior Court of Burlington County, New Jersey, case number BUR-L-1141-05 (the "New Jersey Case").
*3
Case 1:06-cv-00487-WDQ Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 5
Id. .
On February 23, 2006, Mercer filed its original complaint in this case against MUA and Cooper. Paper No. 1.
On April 26, 2006, MUA's rights relative to Mercer's policy were аdjudicated by default judgment for Mercer in the New Jersey Case. Am. Compl. \%\% 16, 17.
On June 7, 2006, Mercer filed its Amеnded Complaint, which dismissed MUA because MUA's rights under the policy were res judicata, and to рreserve diversity jurisdiction. Id. \% 17.
On September 2, 2006, the Maryland Case was dismissed without prejudice for Cоoper's failure to effect service on Fernandes. Cooper v. Fernandes, Nо. 23-C-05-000136 (C.C. for Worcester Count, Md. Sept. 2, 2006, Doc. No. 24). II. Discussion
The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that "[i]n a case of actual controversy . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declаration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. (a). "Federal standards guide the inquiry as tо the propriety of declaratory relief in federal courts, even when the cаse is under the court's diversity jurisdiction." White v. Nat'l Union
*4
Case 1:06-cv-00487-WDQ Document 32 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 5
Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.,
Two cоnditions must be met for a district court to have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment: (1) "the dispute must be a 'case or controversy' within the confines of Article III of the United States Constitution--the 'constitutional' inquiry;" and (2) "the trial court, in its discretion, must be satisfied that declaratory relief is appropriate--the 'prudential' inquiry." Id.
To determine whether there is an Article III controversy, the court must determine "whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legаl interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declarаtory judgment." Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal &; Oil Co.,
Mercer argues that although the Maryland Case has beеn dismissed, Maryland's three-year limitations period on Cooper's tort claims will not expire until November 17, 2007; thus, it remains possible for Cooper to sue MUA or Fernandes should he be loсated, and a determination of Mercer's rights would then be required.
Although it has been determined that an actual controversy
*5
Case 1:06-cv-00487-WDQ Document 32 Filеd 07/03/07 Page 5 of 5
may exist for declaratory judgment purposes between an insurer and a person suing the insured before such liability has been formally adjudicated, id. at 274, in this case, therе is no suit pending against MUA or an alleged MUA employee. The odds of a controversy between the adverse legal interests of Mercer and Cooper are thus substantially more remote now than when this action began, enough so as to render the case no longer justiciable for lack of an actual controversy.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Mercer's mоtion for summary judgment will be denied, and the case dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
July 3, 2007 Date /s/ William D. Quarles, Jr. United States District Judge