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 Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review an order that narrowed the potential injunctive relief in an action. The plaintiff in Union Pacific sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from bringing certain claims against the plaintiff. The district court rejected some […]
Continue reading....
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....
In Amazon.com Services LLC v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit split over whether a party could appeal from the district court’s delay in deciding a preliminary-injunction motion. The would-be appellant sought to enjoin an order that it file a brief in an NLRB proceeding. When the deadline for that brief arrived, the district court had not […]
Continue reading....
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....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....