NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION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

Before: MOORE, MURPHY, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Michaela Jeffery appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment to The 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 Jeffery’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, Jeffery obtained a state-court default judgment against Dr. Justin 

Clemens, a dentist that negligently performed a procedure on her in 2013. MedPro was Dr. 

Clemens’s malpractice insurer. Jeffery’s amended complaint sought a declaration that MedPro

had a duty to indemnify Dr. Clemens for the default judgment against him. Jeffery also alleged

that MedPro denied her insurance claim in bad faith. The district court bifurcated the proceedings 

for the declaratory-judgment claim and the bad-faith claim and stayed 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 “oftentimes, 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 granting 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 preserve 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 the 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, courts 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 declaratoryjudgment claim left Jeffery’s bad-faith claim unresolved. Its later order denying Jeffery’s motion 
Case 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.