Appealing Duty-to-Defend Decisions
In Selective Insurance Company of America v. Westfield Insurance Company, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an interlocutory appeal from a duty-to-defend decision. The court assumed—as other courts have held—that duty-to-defend orders can be appealable injunctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). But the underlying litigation in Selective Insurance (that is, the litigation in which the insured was seeking a defense) was resolved while the duty-to-defend appeal was pending. Because that underlying litigation was over, the duty-to-defend order no longer imposed any prospective obligations on the insurance company. The Fourth Circuit thus concluded that the duty-to-defend order “lack[ed] the character of an injunction” and thus could not be immediately appealed via § 1292(a)(1).
The Duty-to-Defend Order in Selective Insurance
Simplifying a fair bit, Selective Insurance stemmed from a dispute over insurance coverage. A construction company had been sued for allegedly defective work. That company asked its insurer to to pay for the defense of that suit. The insurance company refused. So the construction company sued the insurer. The construction company sought (among other things) a declaration that the insurance company had a duty to defend the construction company in the defective-construction action.
The district court ruled that the insurance company had a duty to defend the construction company. But disputed fact issues precluded resolution of the other claims in the action. The district court also stayed any further proceedings pending resolution of the underlying defective-construction action.
The insurance company appealed the duty-to-defend decision. While that appeal was pending, the construction company settled the underlying defective-construction action.
Immediate Appeals From Duty-To-Defend Decisions
The law governing appeals from duty-to-defend decisions does not appear to be entirely settled.
Some courts of appeals have held that these decisions are appealable injunctions via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). To be sure, duty-to-defend orders are rarely (if ever) formal injunctions. In fact, the requested relief seems to often be a declaratory judgment. But orders having the practical effect of injunctions are also appealable under § 1292(a)(1).
The tests for “effective injunctions” vary. Courts have generally looked to the type of relief ordered, the possibility of contempt for disobeying the order, and the likelihood of irreparable harm. Duty-to-defend orders can require an insurer to (as the name implies) provide a defense to the insured, which is often the relief at issue in these cases. Though not technically enforceable via contempt, there is little doubt about how district courts would treat any flouting of the order. And providing a defense can involve expenses that the insured will not be able to repay.
I’m not aware of any court squarely holding that duty-to-defend decisions are never appealable injunctions. But I’ll note that some courts have reviewed duty-to-defend decisions via appeals from partial judgments entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or certified appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The use of these methods suggests at least some doubt as to whether duty-to-defend decisions can be appealed via § 1292(a)(1).
Selective Insurance’s Separate Rule for Completed Proceedings
The Selective Insurance court assumed that the duty-to-defend decision could be immediately appealed via § 1292(a)(1). But it recognized an exception to that rule when the underlying proceedings are over.
Because the underlying litigation in Selective Insurance was finished, there was no longer any possible prospective relief. All expenses that the insurance company might incur had already been incurred. So there was no longer any risk of additional irreparable harm. Review of the duty-to-defend order could wait until after a final judgment.
Selective Insurance Company of America v. Westfield Insurance Company, 2023 WL 4479322 (4th Cir. July 12, 2023), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In New York State Telecommunications Association v. James, the Second Circuit split over an attempt at manufacturing finality. The district court had granted a preliminary injunction after concluding that federal law preempted a New York state law. The parties then stipulated to entry of a final judgment. A majority of the Second Circuit determined that […]
Continue reading....
In In re Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, a divided Fifth Circuit held that the delay in resolving a preliminary-injunction motion effectively denied that motion. The court thought that the context of the case—impending changes to regulations—required quick action. So when the district court did not decide the preliminary-injunction request by the plaintiffs’ desired date, […]
Continue reading....
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction to immediately review many district court decisions involving injunctive relief. But § 1292(a)(1)’s text includes an important qualifier. It applies to “[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts.” Normally this qualifier does little work. After all, most (if not nearly all) § 1292(a)(1) appeals involve injunctions issued by a […]
Continue reading....
Extensive post-judgment proceedings sometimes follow litigation. These proceedings might involve efforts to collect on a judgment. Or they might involve a district court’s supervision of a consent decree or remedial injunction. These post-judgment proceedings are considered a separate action for finality purposes. So litigants have a right to appeal from a final decision. That often […]
Continue reading....
As a general rule, temporary restraining orders (often initialized as TROs) are not immediately appealable. Granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) permits appeals from orders concerning injunctions. But TROs are normally not considered injunctions for appellate-jurisdiction purposes. So litigants generally must wait until the district court rules on a preliminary injunction before taking an appeal. Exceptions to […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.
Continue reading....