Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04107/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04107-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4107

___________

State Farm Mutual Automobile *

Insurance Company, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Susan Griffin; Toni Woolsay, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 2007

Filed: July 12, 2007 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court1

 dismissing State Farm's

action for a declaratory judgment that its policy does not cover the damages

occasioned by an automobile accident in which Susan Griffin and Toni Woolsay claim

they were injured. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. An Oklahoma state court in which

Ms. Griffin and Ms. Woolsay filed an action for their injuries had previously entered

an order declaring that State Farm was indeed liable under its policy, but State Farm

Appellate Case: 06-4107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2007 Entry ID: 3328928
-2-

asserted in its complaint in the district court that the order was void because State

Farm was not a party to the state action.

The district court decided that it should abstain from hearing the case because

the action pending in Oklahoma already provided an avenue to determine the coverage

question. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288-90 (1995). The district

court reasoned that while the matter of coverage had already been ruled on, State Farm

could intervene in the state court under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2024.

On appeal, State Farm argues, among other things, that intervening in the

Oklahoma action would be contrary to Oklahoma law and inefficient. We see no

reason to believe that either of these two arguments has merit, and subsequent events

have proved that they do not. State Farm has in fact moved to intervene in the

Oklahoma action, has moved to have the judgment entered against it there vacated,

and has petitioned for a declaratory judgment as to its obligations under its policy; the

Oklahoma court, moreover, has granted the motion to intervene and has set aside its

previous judgment. State Farm's petition for a declaratory judgment, so far as we can

tell, remains pending in the Oklahoma court and there appears to be no obstacle in the

way of its eventual and timely adjudication.

A district court has the discretion to determine whether and when to entertain

a declaratory judgment action, especially when there is a parallel state court

proceeding on the same matter, and we review its decision not to do so for an abuse

of discretion. Wilton, 515 U.S. at 289-90. Since the Oklahoma state court is currently

seized of jurisdiction in the very matter that State Farm wishes to have determined in

the present action, we discern no abuse of discretion in dismissing this case. Indeed,

the facts here make out a classic case for abstention.

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4107 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2007 Entry ID: 3328928