Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-1722
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00185-RBS-TEM)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
This case presents a dispute over several insurers duties
to
indemnify
general
contractor
for
its
remediation
of
The district
For the reasons
I.
Between
2005
and
2009,
Dragas
Management
Corporation
Virginia.
DMC
subcontracted
the
drywall
Due to a
policies
from
two
insurers.
DMC
purchased
from
Builders
Mutual
Insurance
3
Company,
commercial
package
policy
and
commercial
umbrella
policy
contained
commercial
those
sums
[DMC]
that
general
becomes
liability
legally
for
Each
coverage
obligated
to
for
pay
as
Chinese
drywalls
sulfuric
off-gassing
damaged
metal
2009,
executing
DMC
remediation
prepared
agreements
remediation
with
Beginning in
plan
individual
and
began
homeowners.
drywall,
replace
all
damaged
metal
components,
pay
filed
this
action
against
DMC,
in
it
alleged
sought
declaratory
judgment
4
that
it
owed
no
duty
to
indemnify
DMC
for
its
Chinese
drywall
remediation
costs.
court
could
insurers.
allocate
the
costs
equitably
between
the
against DMC.
complaint
Insurance
against
Company
its
and
subcontractors
Citizens
Insurance
insurers
--
Company
of
not
cover
DMCs
remediation
costs
because
DMC
made
the
DMC,
Dragas
Associates,
and
Hampshires
Associates
II.
We consider subject matter jurisdiction de novo, regardless
of whether a party has raised, or the district court addressed,
the issue.
In its motion
First,
courts
jurisdiction
by
the
cannot
parties
own
be
conferred
determination
upon
of
who
the
are
determine
when
to
parties,
we
apply
the
two-step
First, we
plaintiffs
principal
purpose
for
filing
its
suit.
Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 337 (4th Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Id.
complaint,
we
look
to
whether
diversity
jurisdiction
still
exists.
In Fidelity, an insurer filed a declaratory judgment action
against
that
it
its
insured
owed
environmental
no
and
duty
several
to
liabilities,
co-insurers
indemnify
and,
the
second,
alleging,
insured
that
for
if
first,
certain
it
must
48 F.3d
the
sole
defendant.
The
realignment
destroyed
complete
diversity, and the district court dismissed the action for lack
of jurisdiction.
Id. at 132.
We affirmed.
In so doing, we
agreed with the district court that any disputes existing among
the insurers regarding contribution are ancillary to the primary
issue of the duty to indemnify.
Id. at 134.
Because all of
Id.
and
Firemens
share
this
principal
purpose
of
Therefore, we must
realignment
of
Firemens
as
plaintiff
destroys
--
dismissing
argue
Firemens
we
can
the
save
our
case.
jurisdiction
Dragas
counters
by
that
(4th
Cir.
emphasize[d]
that
such
However,
authority
the
Supreme
should
be
Court
has
exercised
from
case,
we
must
be
satisfied
that
it
is
not
an
652.
Dragas relies on Schlumberger Industries, Inc. v. National
Surety
Corp.,
36
F.3d
1274
(4th
Cir.
1994),
to
argue
that
In Schlumberger, we held
all
of
the
insurers
are
required
and
indispensable
with
less
than
full
coverage
even
Id.
three
presented
questions
might
result
adjudication:
provide
that
in
--
if
whipsaw
though
it
was
legally
In particular, we identified
of
to
different
prejudicially
courts
--
inconsistent
coverage
at
all;
(2)
the
legal
question
of
what
question
occurred.
of
when
--
if
at
all
--
such
trigger
and
indispensable
to
any
adjudication
issued
policies
to
an
Id. at 1287-88.
as
with
commercial
general
liability
periods,
and
both
insurers
policies
litigation
indemnify
DMC
as
would
to
pose
Builders
threats
and
of
are
potentially
As in Schlumberger,
Firemens
both
legal
duties
and
to
factual
whipsaw.
All
of
Hanover
Schlumberger fail.
court
granted
legal
question
and
attempts
to
distinguish
summary
and
Firemens
judgment,
negates
emphasized in Schlumberger.
the
this
case
risk
of
presents
factual
purely
whipsaw
so
summary
judgment
for
the
insurers.
The
district
courts
they
ignore
Schlumbergers
procedural
Once
posture.
In
present
regarding
several
Firemens
such
arguments
realignment
thinly
veiled
and
waiver
Dragas
indispensability
arguments
are
failure
earlier;
ineffectual.
to
raise
however,
For
Constantine, 411
F.3d at 480.
Therefore, we apply Schlumberger and hold that Firemens is
a required and indispensable party to this case; accordingly, we
cannot
dismiss
Firemens
from
the
case
to
preserve
our
jurisdiction.
11
III.
For the reasons set forth above, we vacate the judgment of
the district court and remand to that court so that it can
dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
12