NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 23a0470n.06
Case No. 23

- 5392
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MICHAELA JEFFERY , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OPINION

B efore : MOORE, MURPHY, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

. MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Michaela Jeffery appeals the district court ’ s grant of summary judgment to T he Medical Protective Company (“ MedPro ”) on her request for declaratory relief in this insurance

- coverage dispute . But because the order granting summary judgment was not a final decision, we dismiss Jeff er y’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In 2019, Jeffery sued MedPro in state court , and MedPro removed the suit to the district
court. Before suing MedPro , Jeff er y obtained a state

- court default judgment against Dr. Justin Clem e ns, a dentist that negligently performed a procedure on her in 2013

. MedPro was Dr. Clemens’s malpractice insurer. Jeffery’s amended complaint sought a declar ation that MedPro had a duty to indemnify Dr. Clemens for the default judgment against him

. Jeff er y also alleged that MedPro denied her insurance claim in bad faith. The district court bifu r cated the proceedings for the declaratory

-

judgment claim and the bad

- faith claim and stay ed the latter until it decided whether MedPro was contractually obligated to indemnify Dr. Clemens for the default judgment ,Case No. 23

- 5392, Jeffery v. Med. Protective Co.

- 2

- for “ o ftentimes, the disposition of the contractual claim may obviate the need to try the issue of bad faith.” R. 19, PageID 219

– 20. On June 24, 2022, the district court entered an order grant ing summary judgment to MedPro on the declaratory

- judgment claim , holding that MedPro was not required to provide coverage for the default judgment against Dr. Clemens. In the order, the district court directed the parties to file a joint status report to “discuss whether they intend[ed] to proceed on the previously bifurcated claims in this matter.” R. 61, PageID 850. In their joint status report, the parties indicated that Jeffery intended to file a motion to reconsider the summary

- judgment decision and that Jeffery “intend [ ed ] to p reserve her right to pursue her bad faith claims.” R. 66, PageID 1000.
After Jeffery moved to reconsider, the district court denied the motion in March 2023 . The district court did not address Jeffery’s bad

- faith claim. And t he district court did not enter , and has not entered , a final judgment

. Thus, Jeffery’s bad

- faith claim remains pending before the district court

. Although the parties do not raise the issue of our appellate jurisdiction, “ [ a]n appellate court has a duty to consider sua sponte whether appellate jurisdiction is properly invoked

. ” Mattingly v. Farmers State Bank , 153 F.3d 336, 336 (6th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). With some limited exceptions, c ourts of appeals have jurisdiction over “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A decision is final if it “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States , 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). “In the absence of a Rule 54(b) certification, an order disposing of fewer than all of the asserted claims is not appealable as a final judgment.” Good v. Ohio Edison Co. , 104 F.3d 93, 95 (6th Cir. 1997) (order). The district court ’ s order granting summary judgment to MedPro on Jeffery’s declaratory

judgment claim left Jeffery’s bad

- faith claim unresolved

. Its later order denying Jeffery’s motionCase No. 23

- 5392, Jeffery v. Med. Protective Co.

- 3

- to reconsider did not change the status of the bad

- faith claim

. And the district court did not certify its summary

-

judgment decision as an appealable order under Rule 54(b). See Murray v. Bank One, Columbus, N.A. , 765 F.2d 145, 1985 WL 13327, at *1 (6th Cir. 1985) (unpublished table decision). Thus, there is no final decision. That the district court has not entered a final judgment is further evidence of this point. For these reasons, we DISMISS Jeffery’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.