Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40710

ES S EX I NSURANCE COM PA NY P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. LO N G I SLA N D O W N ER S ASSO CI AT I O N S, I N C. ; M AR TH A SA LI N AS; R U B E N V IL L A R R E A L , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C 1: 08- C V

- 00179

B e fo r e B A R K S D A L E , G A R Z A , a n d D E N N IS , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * O n Apr i l5 , 2 00 6, Ess e xI ns ur anc e Com pa ny ( “ Ess e x” ) i ns ur e d Lo ng I s l and O w ner s A ss oc i at i on ( “ LIO A ” ) u nder an O c ean M ar i ne an d C om m er c i alG ener al Li ab i l i t y Pol i c y. The po l i c y w as e f fe c t i ve f r o m Apr i l 5, 20 06 , t o Apr i l5 , 2 00 7, a nd i t provi ded t h at E ssex w o u l d d efen d an d i n dem n i f y L IO Aagainst cl ai m s f or bo di l y i nj ur y, w i t h a $ 5 m i l l i o n l i m i t
. The po l i c y had t he f o l l o w i ng e xc e pt i o n: United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 27, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40710 Document: 00511123787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2010N o. 09- 40710

2 T h i s i n suran ce does not ap pl y t o an y cl ai m , sui t , cos t or exp en se ar i s i ng o uto f, c aus e d b y o r c o nt r i but ed t o b y t he o w ne r s hi p, no no w n e r s h i p , m a in te n a n c e , u s e o r e n tr u s tm e n t t o o th e r s o f a n y “a u to .” U se i n cl u des operati on an d “l oad i n g an d u n l oad i n g. ” T h i s excl u si on a p p lie s to th e e n tir e p o lic y a n d w h e r e th e r e is n o co v e r a g e , th e r e is n o d u ty to d e fe n d

. O n F eb ru a ry 24 , 20 0 7 , du ri n g th e per i od th a t th e i n su ra n ce po l i cy w a s i n eff ect, M ar t ha Sal i nas ( “ Sal i nas ” ) and Rube n Vi l l ar r e al ( “Vi l l ar r e al” ) w e r e r i di ng o n a
m o t o r c yc l e t o w ar d t he i r ho m e on LongI s l and , P o r t I s ab e l , T e xa s w he n a s w i ng br i dge t r af

f i c ar m bel ongi ng t o LI O As uddenl y l ow er ed and s t r uck t hem

. Sal i nas and Vi l l ar r e alf

i l e d s ui t o n M ar c h 2 6, 2 00 8, in T e xa s s t at e c o ur t a l l e gi ng
n e g li ge n ce, p rem i ses l i a b i l i ty, an d n eg l i ge n ce p er se , cl a i m i n g th a t t h e tra ffic
a rm w a s d a n ge rou s be ca u se itl a c k e d ad eq u a te w a rn i n gs an d did n ot op era te
s a fe l y . E s s e x i s d e fe n d i n g L I O A i n t h a t s u i t u n d e r a r e s e r v a t i o n o f r i g h t s . On M ay2 2, 200 8, E s s e x f i l e d a s ui t i n f

e de r alc o ur t , s e e ki ng a de c l ar at o r y j udg m e nt t h at i t does not hav e a du t y t o d efen d or i n dem n i f y L IO Ai n st ate c ou rtbecau se t h e p o li cy excl u si on qu ot ed ab ove ap pl i es t o t h i s c ase. T h e parti es f i l ed cross

m o tio n s fo r s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. O n June 10, 2 00 9, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t e nt e r e d a n o r de r a nd o pi ni o n g r ant i ng L IO A ’ s m o ti on an d de n yin g E sse x’ s m oti on , h oldin g th a t E sse x h a s a d u ty to defend L IO Ain t h e st ate c ou rtsui t
. T h e di st ri ctcourtal so hel d that i t coul d n ot
r eac h t he ques t i on of the dut y t o i ndem ni f y u nt i lt he under l yi ng s t at e s ui t w as resol ved – i t t h eref

ore s t ayed t h e pen di n g t ri aldate and dead l i n es i n di st ri ct court an d d i rect ed the pa rt i es t o noti f y i t w h en t h e u n derl yi n g sui t ha d been
r e s o lv e d . E s s e x tim e ly a p p e a le d

. “T h e gener alr ul e i s t hat ‘ a par t y i s ent i t l ed t o a s i ngl e a ppeal , t o b e defer red un t i lf

i n al j u dg m en t h as been entered, i n w h i ch cl ai m s of di st ri ctcourt
e r r o r a t a n y s ta g e o f th e litig a tio n m a y b e v e n tila te d .’ ” Q u a ck en b u sh v. A llsta te Ins. Co. , 517 U

. S. 706, 712 ( 1996) ( quot i ng D ig ita l E q u ip

. C o rp . v . D es k top D ire ct, Case: 09-40710 Document: 00511123787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2010N o. 09- 40710

Th er e als o exis t a“n arrowc la ss”o f im me diatelyapp ealab lec ollate ral or de rs . See 1 Quacken bus h , 51 7 U .S. at71 2. An order fall s within this class if ic at io n if it “co nclusively determine[s] the dispute d qu estion , reso lve[s] an important issue complet elyseparatefrom th e me ritso f th e a ctio n , a n d [i s] e ff ectiv elyu nrevie wab leo napp eal fr om a fi n al j u dgme nt. ” Coo pers & Lyb rand

v. L ivesay , 437 U.S. 4 63, 468(19 78)

. E ssex does not argu e this e xce ption appli es. I n a d diti o n a j u d g m e nt di s p o s i n g o f o n e o r s ev e r al i s s u e s i n a c a s e m aybe im me di ate lyapp ealab leif th e di strictc ourtc ertifi esit fo r a pp eal u nde r FR C PRule5 4 (b). Th er e wa s no 5 4 (b) ce rtif ic ationinthisc a se . See, e . g. , A m e r . Motorists I ns. Co. v. Levolor Lorentzen In c. , 879 F.2d1165 (3rdCir. 1989) (as sum ing argu endoth at where dutyto defen d and dut y to inde mnifyar e separatele gal i ssues an order resolving th e fo rmer b ut not the latt erwo uldb e eligib lef orc ertificationu n de r Rule5 4 (b))

.

3 I nc . , 511 U

. S

. 863 , 868 ( 199 4) )

. T h i s s i n gl e app eal m u stordi n ari l y be taken f rom a deci si on t h at en ds t h e li t i gati on on the m eri t s and l eaves n ot h i n g f or t h e court to d o b u t e x e c u te th e ju d g m e n t. I d. As ta y m a y b e a fin a l o r d e r w h e n it 1 “eff ectively [pu ts th e li ti ga n ts] ou t of cou rt, ” beca u se itl ea ve s n oth i n g fu rth er to b e lit ig a te d in fe d e r a l co u r t. Mo s e s H

. ConeMe m . Ho s p. v . Cons t
. Cor

p. , 4 60 U

. S. 1 , 1 0 -1 2 (1 9 8 3 ); seeal so Saf ety Nat’ lC as. C orp. v. B ri st ol

- M yers S qu i bb C o. , 214 F .3d 5 6 2 , 5 6 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e st ay i ssued i n t h is case, how ever, w as not a f i n alorder. T h e di st ri ct court cl earl y contem pl ated f u rth e r p ro ce edi n gs on the case and t h e st ay order d id n o t d is p o s e o f a ll is s u e s o r e n d t h e lit ig a tio n o n t h e m e r its

. F u r th e r , it d id
n ot p u t t h e li ti ga n ts “ou t of cou rt” b eca u se t h ere rem a i n s an active q u estion to be l i t i ga t e d, a nd t h e par t i e s a r e m e r e l y awai t i ng f ur t he r i nf

o r m at i o n (i

. e . , t he
reso l u ti on of th e m erits of t h e n eg l i ge n ce su i t) tha t w i l len a b l e th e cou rt t o d e c id e th e re m a in in gq u estio n . Se e Pe nn -Am e r i c a I ns ur a nc e Co mp a ny v . M APP , 5 2 1 F

. 3 d 29 0 ( 4 th C i r. 20 0 8 ) (ho l d i n g th a t si m i l a r stay i n du ty to d efen d /i n d em n i fy ca se w a s n ot fi n a lord er w h ere distri ct cou rt resolve d du ty to def end but di d notr eac h dutyt o i ndem nif y a n d di sm i ss ed c as e f r om i t s ac t i ve d o ck e t b u t p ro v id e d p a rtie s co u ld re in sta te ca se on ce li a b il ityh a d b e e n se ttled ). S ee als o F

ed. Hom e Loa n Mortg. Corp. v. S cot t sda l e I n s. Co. , 316 F

. 3d 431 ( 3rd C i r. 20 0 3 ) (ho l d i n g th a t w h ere con sen t j u d gm en t pro vid ed f or righ t t o rein state Case: 09-40710 Document: 00511123787 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/27/2010N o. 09- 40710

4 c er t ai n co m pl ai nt s pendi ng appel l at e c our t r ul i ng c ons ent or der w as nota f i nal
a p p e a la b le ju d g m e n t); R oyal Ins. C o. of A m er. v. KT A

- T ator, I n c. , 2 3 9 F . A p p ’x 722 ( 3rd C i r. 200 7) ( u n pu bl i shed ) ( h ol di n g t h at w h ere di st ri ct co u rt i ssued de c l ar at o r y j udg m e nto n du t y t o de fen d/ i n de m ni f y “ w i t ho utpr ej udi c e ” a nd
e xp r e s s l y i nvi t e d p ar t i es t o pur s ue f ur t he r l i t i ga t i o n o n i nde m ni f i c at i o n i f

t he litiga ti on i n the state cou rt reve a l ed i n form a ti on su p p orting the req u est, ap pel l ate c ou rt had no j u ri sdi ct i on becau se or der speci f i cal l y contem pl ated p o s s ib ility o f fu tu r e fe d e r a l litig a tio n ). B ecau se t h e st ay w as not a fi n alorder un der 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1291 t h i s c ou rt la c k s ju r is d ic tio n . T h e a p p e a l is th e r e fo r e D IS M IS S E D

. Case: 09-40710 Document: 00511123787 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/27/2010