Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Eagle Eye Truck Lines, LLC

• Decision Date: 27 July 2022
• Docket Number: 22-CV-147-JFH-JFJ
• Parties: NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. EAGLE EYE TRUCK LINES, LLC; THE ESTATE OF NICOLE JORDAN; CHRISTIAN DETTLE, individually and as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF LAURA LYONS; CAROLYN DETTLE; and CAROLYN JORDAN, NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma

NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
EAGLE EYE TRUCK LINES, LLC; THE ESTATE OF NICOLE JORDAN; CHRISTIAN DETTLE, individually and as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF LAURA LYONS; CAROLYN DETTLE; and CAROLYN JORDAN, NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.

No. 22-CV-147-JFH-JFJ

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

July 27, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN F. HEIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is a motion to stay pending determination in the underlying state court proceeding (“Motion”) filed by Defendant Eagle Eye Truck Lines (“EETL”). Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff National Casualty Company (“NCC”) opposes the Motion. Dkt. No. 18. For the reasons stated, EETL's Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

NCC filed this declaratory action to determine its obligations in an Oklahoma state court suit. Dkt. No. 2. NCC provides general liability insurance to EETL. Id. at 4. EETL is a named defendant in Nowata County, Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2022-5 (the “Oklahoma Lawsuit”), which concerns a fatal accident involving one of EETL's vehicles. Id. at 3-4. Two EETL employees, who were family members of each other, died in the accident. Id. The estate of one family member has now sued the estate of the other, alleging negligence, wrongful death, and loss of consortium. Dkt. No. 2-1. The Oklahoma Lawsuit's petition alleges that its claims fall within the Oklahoma

1

state constitution but outside of the Oklahoma Worker's Compensation Act. Id. at 2. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 4.

NCC provides general commercial and automobile liability insurance to EETL. Dkt. No. 2 at 4-7. The policy has several exclusions, including various workers' compensation and bodily injury carve-outs. Id. The policy also has an “MCS-90 Endorsement” relating to injury or death of employees and an exclusion for punitive damages. Id. at 8-9. Based on these exclusions and endorsement, NCC seeks a declaratory judgment from the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify EETL in or pay any claims relating to the Oklahoma Lawsuit. Id. at 11.

EETL requests the Court stay NCC's declaratory judgment action until the appropriate choice of law can be determined in the Oklahoma Lawsuit. Dkt. No. 15. It states possible applicable laws are those of Michigan, Arizona, Kentucky, or Oklahoma. Id. at 2. Michigan, Arizona, and Kentucky have statutes providing exclusive workers' compensation remedies for wrongful death. Id. The parties appear to agree that if one of these states' laws govern, NCC's general commercial and automobile liability insurance would not apply and NCC would have no obligation to defend, indemnify, or pay damages on behalf of EETL. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recently struck down a similar workers' compensation statute as violative of the Oklahoma state constitution. Dkt. No. 19 at 2 (discussing Whipple v. Phillips & Sons Trucking, LLC, 474 P.3d 339 (Okla. 2020)). If the court in the Oklahoma Lawsuit applies Oklahoma law, EETL states it “will assert coverage under [NCC's general and automotive liability] policy, which violates Oklahoma's compulsory motor vehicle insurance law and public policy by excluding coverage of a passenger.” Dkt. No. 19 at 3.

2

AUTHORITY AND ANALYSIS

The Declaratory Judgment Act states that “any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201. This statute “confers upon district courts ‘unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants.'” United States v. City of Las Cruces, 289 F.3d 1170, 1183 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995)). Discretion to hear declaratory actions is based in part on the reasoning that “[o]rdinarily it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in state court presenting the same issues, not governed by federal law, between the same parties.” Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 495 (1942). The Tenth Circuit has adopted five factors for a district court to evaluate in determining whether to use its discretion to dismiss or stay a declaratory action:

[1] whether a declaratory action would settle the controversy; [2] whether it would

...