Travelers Indem. Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.
| Decision Date | 25 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93 Civ. 0993 (SWK).,93 Civ. 0993 (SWK). |
| Parties | The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and American Motorists Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., Crown Beverage Packaging, Inc., Continental Holdings, Inc., Sonoco Products Company, Sonoco Fibre Drum, Inc., and KMI Continental Fibre Drum, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett by Barry R. Ostrager, Mary Kay Vyskocil, Nancy B. Mallery, Aron, Twomey, Hoppe & Gallanty by Michael E. Twomey, Law Office of Samuel A. Almon by Samuel A. Almon, New York City, Manta & Welge by Albert L. Piccerilli, Princeton, NJ, Drinker Biddle & Reath by T. Andrew Culbert, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiffs.
Waters, McPherson, McNeill, P.C. by Gregory J. Castano, Mark J. McPherson, Genevieve Raganelli, Robert J. Donaher, Secaucus, NJ, Williams, Caliri, Miller & Otley by Hope M. Pomerantz, Wayne, NJ, for defendants.
In this insurance coverage dispute, defendants move for an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs have failed to allege a justiciable case or controversy. Defendants also move, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order dismissing the complaint for failure to join an indispensable party. Alternatively, defendants move for an order either dismissing or staying the action on federal abstention grounds. Plaintiffs oppose defendants' motions. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied and defendants' motion to stay is granted.
Between 1962 and 1983, plaintiffs The Travelers Indemnity Company ("Travelers Indemnity"), Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual") and American Motorists Insurance Company ("American Motorists") issued primary insurance policies to a corporate entity known as Continental Can Company, Inc. ("Continental Can"). Specifically, Travelers Indemnity issued three comprehensive general liability insurance policies to Continental Can between 1962 and 1968. Liberty Mutual issued six public liability insurance policies and six comprehensive combination insurance policies to Continental Can between 1968 and 1973. American Motorists issued eight comprehensive general liability insurance policies to Continental Can between 1973 and 1983.1 Continental Can is the only named insured in each of the Continental Can policies.
Each policy issued by Travelers Indemnity and Liberty Mutual contained a $100,000 per occurrence property damage limit. With respect to the policies issued by American Motorists, the first four policies contained a $100,000 per occurrence property damage limit and the other four policies contained a $1 million per occurrence property damage limit. Continental Can supplemented these insurance policies by purchasing additional layers of insurance coverage from four other primary insurance carriers and more than seventy-five excess insurance carriers.
Continental Can subsequently was dissolved and defendants Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork"), Crown Beverage Packaging, Inc. ("Crown Beverage"), Continental Holdings, Inc. ("Continental Holdings"), Sonoco Products Company ("Sonoco Products"), Sonoco Fibre Drum, Inc. ("Sonoco Fibre") and KMI Continental Fibre Drum, Inc. ("KMI") acquired the Continental Can's manufacturing operations.
Continental Can's former manufacturing operations have since become the source of more than 100 environmental claims arising out of approximately 100 hazardous waste sites located throughout the country.2 Defendants, as acquirers of Continental Can, have been forced to defend against these claims pursuant to federal and state successor liability doctrines.
Defendants claim that the primary insurance policies, including the Continental Can policies, and the excess insurance policies provide coverage for the environmental liability incurred as a result of defendants' acquisition of Continental Can's manufacturing operations. Accordingly, in 1991 and 1992, defendants commenced three separate declaratory judgment actions against the seven primary insurance carriers and the more than seventy-five excess insurance carriers. Specifically, in June 1991, Crown Cork and Crown Beverage commenced an action in New Jersey Superior Court in Hudson County (the "Crown action"). See Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., HUD-L-5956-91. Subsequently, in October 1991, Continental Holdings instituted an action in New Jersey Superior Court in Middlesex County (the "Continental action"). See Continental Holdings, Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., L-12453-91. Finally, in August 1992, Sonoco Products, Sonoco Fibre and KMI commenced an action in New Jersey Superior Court in Hudson County (the "Sonoco action"). See Sonoco Prods. Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., HUD-L-7500-92 (collectively, the "New Jersey actions"). Travelers Indemnity, Liberty Mutual and American Motorists are named defendants in each of the New Jersey actions. The New Jersey actions address not only the coverage obligations of the primary and excess insurers, but also substantive insurance contract claims and the application of the Continental Can policies to the numerous hazardous waste sites located throughout the country.
The Crown and Sonoco actions were assigned to Judge Joseph T. Ryan ("Judge Ryan") and have been proceeding concurrently. In January 1993, Crown Cork and Crown Beverage moved for the consolidation of the New Jersey actions in the New Jersey Superior Court in Hudson County. See Notice of Motion for Consolidation of Actions, annexed to the Affidavit of Gregory J. Castano, sworn to on May 10, 1993 (the "Castano Aff.") as Exh. "E." American Motorists opposed consolidation on the grounds that it was "premature" to decide whether consolidation in Hudson or Middlesex County was appropriate. See Tr. of Hr'g, annexed to defendants' Reply Brief as Exh. "C," at 24. Judge Ryan ultimately decided to withhold a decision on whether to consolidate the New Jersey actions, consolidating the Crown and Sonoco actions for discovery purposes only. See Consolidation Order, annexed to the Castano Aff. as Exh. "D."
The parties dispute the amount of progress that has been made in the New Jersey actions. According to plaintiffs, the parties have engaged in limited document discovery involving the exchange of policies and the production of a relatively small quantity of documents concerning the underlying claims. See Affidavit of Nancy B. Mallery, sworn to on June 10, 1993, at ¶ 5. Moreover, plaintiffs state that few rulings have been made in any of the New Jersey actions and that it is unlikely that the cases will be resolved in the near future. Id. at ¶ 6.
According to defendants, however, a substantial number of documents have been either exchanged or ordered to be exchanged. These include the policies, summaries and claims files for seventy-five hazardous waste sites, underwriting files and information regarding corporate histories. Further, four case management orders have been issued in order to expedite and coordinate the progress of the discovery proceedings. See Case Management Orders I-IV, annexed to the Castano Aff. as Exh. "A." Additionally, several motions have been briefed by the parties and many of these have now been decided.
On February 19, 1993, Travelers Indemnity, Liberty Mutual and American Motorists commenced this action by filing a complaint against defendants based on the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs seek to interplead defendants, pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that defendants' insurance coverage claims may expose plaintiffs to multiple liability (First Claim for Relief). Further, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment establishing which, if any, of the six defendants has standing to assert claims for insurance coverage as successors to the Continental Can policies (Second Claim for Relief). Plaintiffs allege that a final resolution of the coverage issue would serve the interests of all parties in that plaintiffs would be able to provide coverage to the appropriate defendants in the environmental claims against them and all parties would avoid unnecessary litigation costs.
Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs have failed to present a justifiable case or controversy. Specifically, defendants argue that neither Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, provides a jurisdictional predicate for plaintiffs' pursuit of a federal judgment.
Defendants also move, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order dismissing the complaint for failure to join an indispensable party. Specifically, defendants argue that the approximately eighty other primary and excess insurance carriers are indispensable to any determination relating to defendants' entitlement to coverage with respect to the hazardous waste clean-up sites. Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed, as joinder of the indispensable parties would defeat the Court's diversity jurisdiction.
In the alternative, defendants move for an order dismissing or staying the action on federal abstention grounds. Specifically, defendants argue that the Court should abstain from proceeding with the present action pending final resolution of the New Jersey actions. Plaintiffs oppose defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the action. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied and defendants' motion to stay is granted.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to present a justifiable case or controversy. According to defendants, there is no actual controversy requiring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C-Based Asset Serv. & Sec., LLC v. Lichtenfels
...one—is the court's responsibility to discourage duplicative and piecemeal litigation"); The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 865 F.Supp. 1083, 1090-91 (S.D.N.Y.1994) C-BASS contends that, "this factor can be fairly characterized as a neutral one." (Pl.'s Opp. at 27). It arg......
-
Franklin Commons East Partnership v. Abex Corp.
...the federal action involved only some of the policies implicated in the broader state proceedings. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 865 F.Supp. 1083, 1090 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (discussing the "substantial risk that the interpretation of these few policies to the exclusion of the oth......
-
Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co. v. Consigli & Assocs.
... ... 27, 2000); Herbert Constr. Co. v. Titan Indem. Co., ... No. 94 Civ. 1261 (RLC), 1996 WL 254859, at ... 716 (2d Cir. 2013)). Cfi, e.g., ... Travelers Indem. Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., ... 865 ... ...
-
Continental Cas. Co. v. Taco Bell Corp.
...Southern District of New York for the proposition that multiple insurers are not necessary parties. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Crown, Cork & Seal Co., 865 F.Supp. 1083, 1088-89 (1994), stay vacated, 66 F.3d 308 (2d Cir.1995). In Crown, Cork & Seal, three primary insurers brought an action ......