Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03803/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03803-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3803

___________

Sirti Limited Corp., *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

The Travelers Indemnity Company of *

America; The Travelers Indemnity * [UNPUBLISHED]

Company of Illinois, *

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2004

 Filed: July 27, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sirti Limited Corp. (“Sirti”), an engineering firm, contracted with Seren

Innovations Incorporated (“Seren”), a subsidiary of Northern States Power, in March

1998 to design a cable installation project in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Cable

Constructors, Inc. (“CCI”) contracted with Seren to install the cable system. In July

1998, Sirti agreed, in a separate contract with Seren, to provide construction

management services on the project. Under the July agreement, Sirti agreed to

ensure that the installation of the cable complied with Sirti’s design and local safety

regulations. 

Appellate Case: 03-3803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792630 
1

Travelers denied they had a duty to defend in a February 1999 letter that

stated:

Sirti contracted with Seren to provide design and engineering services

for the cable installation project. We also understand that Sirti did not

have employees on site at the time of the drilling which led to the

explosion.

. . . .

Both policies contain endorsements that exclude coverage for “bodily

injury” and “property damage” arising out of professional services

performed by Sirti. . . . Since Sirti’s involvement in this case was as a

provider of professional services, there would not be coverage for

damage claims arising out of the explosion. 

J.A. at A-60.

-2-

On December 11, 1998, CCI struck a gas line during the installation process.

The gas leak resulted in an explosion which killed four individuals, injured several

others, and damaged nearby property. The victims of the accident filed twenty-four

separate lawsuits against Sirti for wrongful death, personal injury, and property

damage. 

Sirti filed insurance claims under their Professional Liability Policy from

Evanston and their Commercial General Liability and Commercial Excess Liability

(Umbrella) Policy from Travelers. Evanston agreed to defend Sirti. Travelers refused

to defend because the type of work provided by Sirti at the time of the accident was

not covered under the policy.1

 

Sirti filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Travelers’

duty to defend. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Sirti,

finding Travelers had a duty to defend. The court did not address whether Travelers

had a duty to indemnify. Travelers timely appealed the district court’s decision.

Appellate Case: 03-3803 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792630 
2

On a subsequent appeal from a 54(b) order, no additional briefs need be filed.

-3-

The federal courts have limited, not general, jurisdiction. See Bender v.

Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). We consider our own

jurisdiction. Id. We raise, sua sponte, jurisdictional issues when it appears that the

court lacks jurisdiction, even if the parties concede the issue. See Thomas v. Basham,

931 F.2d 521, 522-23 (8th Cir. 1991). 

We have jurisdiction over final judgments. See 28 U.S.C. 1291. An order

granting partial summary judgment is not final. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v.

Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737,740 (1976); Cohen v. Curtis Pub’g Co., 333 F.2d 974 (8th Cir.

1964). Furthermore, Travelers could have requested the district court to enter final

judgment with “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and

upon an express direction for the entry of judgment, which authorizes an immediate

appeal when only some parties or claims are dismissed,” but they failed to do so. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Reinholdson v. Minnesota, 346 F.3d 847, 849 (8th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Travelers may pursue a timely appeal following the district court’s entry of judgment

under Rule 54(b). A certified copy of such order, if entered, shall be transmitted to

the clerk of this court.2

 

Appeal dismissed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3803 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792630