Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook, 88-8188

Decision Date15 March 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-8188,88-8188
PartiesCINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mack C. HOLBROOK, Glenna S. Holbrook, Mashburn Electric Company, Inc., Glen Curtis McWilliams, and C.B. McWilliams, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Benjamin H. Terry, Savell & Williams, William S. Goodman, Atlanta, Ga., for Cincinnati Ins. Co.

W. Anthony Moss, Johnson & Griffin, Gregory A. Griffin, Marietta, Ga., for Holbrooks.

Hylton B. Dupree, Jr., Hylton B. Dupree, Jr., P.C., Marietta, Ga., for Mashburn Elec.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before HILL and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and ACKER *, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Cincinnati Insurance Company appeals from the district court's dismissal of Cincinnati's action seeking declaratory relief against its insured, Mack C. Holbrook, and others collaterally interested. The record reflects the following pertinent facts:

1. On May 26, 1986, a farm tractor driven by Holbrook collided with a motor vehicle operated by Glen Curtis McWilliams. The accident occurred in Forsyth County, Georgia. Holbrook was very seriously and permanently injured.

2. On October 14, 1986, Holbrook filed a tort action against McWilliams in Forsyth County Superior Court. Considering the severity of Holbrook's injuries, McWilliams is badly underinsured.

3. On December 29, 1986, Cincinnati, which had certain insurance coverages on Holbrook, including underinsured motorist coverage, filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a declaration that Cincinnati has no obligation to Holbrook for covering an underinsured motorist under the facts stated above. The theory of its complaint and its interpretation of its insurance contract are immaterial to this appeal. Although Cincinnati now asks this court to agree with its ultimate contentions in regard to the meaning of the contract, not until the district court passes on Cincinnati's claim, either by summary judgment or on the merits, can this court be asked to review the ultimate issue of coverage.

4. On January 21, 1987, Holbrook answered Cincinnati's complaint in the district court. Although Holbrook did not file a counterclaim, his denial of Cincinnati's contention amounted to an affirmative contention that he and McWilliams are covered for McWilliams' potential tort liability to Holbrook.

5. On June 30, 1987, Holbrook filed a separate action against Cincinnati in the Gwinnett County Superior Court, also in Georgia, seeking to obtain a declaration that Cincinnati owes him "personal injury protection" under the same policy of insurance made the subject of Cincinnati's then pending action in the district court.

6. On June 30, 1987, Cincinnati sought leave of the district court to add a count to its complaint, seeking a declaration that it does not owe Holbrook the P.I.P. which is the subject of Holbrook's action in Gwinnett County. Cincinnati not only asked the district court for leave to amend but to enjoin the parties from proceeding in the state courts and for summary judgment.

7. On November 23, 1987, the district court, of its own motion, dismissed Cincinnati's action without prejudice, and therefore found moot Cincinnati's motions for leave to amend and for a stay of the state proceedings.

8. The district court reasoned that the controversy was not "sufficiently concrete" to be entertained because Georgia law provides that an insurer shall be liable "to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an insured vehicle." Ga.Code Ann. Sec. 33-7-11(a). The district court concluded that the only proper time for Cincinnati to seek a declaratory judgment, according to the law of Georgia, is after Holbrook, its insured, obtains a judgment against McWilliams, the allegedly underinsured motorist. The lower court's decision, therefore, turned on its perception that Cincinnati's action is premature and does not constitute a "case or controversy." Although the word "abstain" does not appear in the opinion, the opinion seems to contain an element of abstention in favor of the Georgia forum.

Assuming, arguendo, that the district court correctly interpreted the law of Georgia to provide that an insurer cannot seek declaratory relief in Georgia as to its obligation under uninsured motorist coverage unless and until the tort liability of the uninsured motorist to the insured has been adjudicated, an invocation of the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2201, 2202, is neither precluded nor controlled by Georgia's procedural law. The principle of Georgia law upon which the district court opinion turned is procedural and not substantive. The mere fact, if it be a fact, that the doors of Georgia's courts are closed to Cincinnati unless and until the liability of McWilliams to Holbrook, if any, has been determined, does not mean that the doors of the federal courts are automatically closed to Cincinnati where the requisites for diversity jurisdiction exist. Here, under traditional federal constitutional principles and under the Declaratory Judgment Act, a "case or controversy" did, in fact, exist when Cincinnati filed its action in the district court. The district court, therefore, was in error when it dismissed the action. Although the district court has an area of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • In re State Police Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • May 16, 1995
    ...claim at this juncture, such a determination is not dispositive of the issue of federal jurisdiction. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook, 867 F.2d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir.1989) ("That the doors of Georgia's courts are closed to plaintiff unless and until liability has been determined, does no......
  • NUCOR Corp. v. Aceros Y Maquilas de Occidente, S.A. de C.V.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • June 24, 1994
    ...review such decisions de novo, and invited a comparison of those decisions adopting the de novo standard, see Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook, 867 F.2d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir.1989); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Ignacio, 860 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir.1988); Tempco, 819 F.2d at 748; and Beacon Const......
  • Westport v. Atchley, Fussell, Waldrop & Hlavinka
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • April 10, 2003
    ...procedural; therefore, it provided no substantive state law grounds for awarding attorneys' fees). Likewise, Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook, 867 F.2d 1330 (11th Cir.1989) reached a similar conclusion. It examined Georgia law. Georgia state law prohibited state courts from issuing declarati......
  • Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, Ltd., 93-5083
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 24, 1994
    ...759 F.2d 1353, 1356-57 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 994, 106 S.Ct. 407, 88 L.Ed.2d 358 (1985); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook, 867 F.2d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir.1989); Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 936 (Fed.Cir.1993). The First Circuit occupies a self-styled......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Hecla Mining: Not Applicable in Federal Court
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 23-6, June 1994
    • Invalid date
    ...supra, note 6 at 1386. 10. 953 F.2d 575 (10th Cir. 1991). 11. Id. at 579. 12. 920 F.2d 664 (10th Cir. 1990). 13. Id. at 668. 14. 867 F.2d 1330 (11th Cir. 1989). 15. Id. at 1333. 16. Civil Action No. 91-M-306 (Jan. 14, 1993). 17. 92-C-2201 (Oct. 20, 1993). 18. Id., Memorandum Opinion at 3. C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT