* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should n ot be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances

set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-20906

Summary Calendar

_______________

AMERICAS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants,

SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED

and

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

formerly known as Geco-Prakla Inc.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-1451)

_________________________

March 24, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: *2

Americas Insurance Company (“Americas”) appeals a dismissal of

its declaratory judgment action against Schlumberger , Ltd., and

Schlumberger Technologies Corporation f/k/a Geco-Prakla, Inc.

(collectively, “Schlumberger”), for want of subject matter

jurisdiction. Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

This action stems from four lawsuits pending against Schlumberger in Texas state court (the “Hidalgo Suits”), in which over

1,000 plaintiffs have alleged that they suffered property damage

and bodily injury during seismographic operations conducted by

Geco- Prakla, a Schlumberger subsidiary. The plaintiffs seek

roughly $200 million in actual and punitive damages. The first of

the lawsuits is scheduled for trial in September 1997, with

mandatory pre-trial mediation to be completed by July 31, 1997.

At all times relevant to the actions alleged in the Hidalgo

Suits, Travelers Indemnity Company provided primary insurance

coverage to Schlumberger under a comprehensive general liability

policy, while Americas provided additional primary coverage. The

Travelers policy has a duty to defend that Schlumberger has invoked

in the Hidalgo Suits. Schlumberger has not requested that Americas

provide a defense, nor does it contend that the Americas policy

contains a defense obligation.

Americas brought the instant action seeking a declaration that

it has a duty neither to defend nor to indemnify Schlumberger for3

the Hidalgo Suits, as the underlying actions alleged in the Hidalgo

Suits did not result from a covered “occurrence” under the policy.

Further, Americas contends that any duty to indemnify that may have

existed is no longer available to Schlumberger because it failed to

comply with the “timely notice” requirements of the policy. Upon

motion from Schlumberger, the district court dismissed for want of

subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the action was no t yet

ripe.

II.

We review the dismissal de novo

. S ee Home Capital Collateral,

Inc. v. FDIC

, 96 F.3d 760, 762 (5th Cir. 1996). Although the

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, is remedial in nature

and is to be construed liberally to achieve its purposes, it is

designed to permit adjudication of claims only where there is an

actual case or controversy and an adjudication would serve a useful

purpose. S ee Allstate Ins. Co. v. Employers L iability Assurance

Corp. , 445 F.2d 1278, 1280 (5th Cir. 1971). A case is ripe for

adjudication where it is not “abstract or hypothetical. The key

considerations are 'the fitness of the issues for judicial decision

and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.'” N

ew Orleans Public Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of

New Orleans (hereinafter “ NOPSI ”), 833 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.

1987) (citations omitted). “A case is generally ripe if any4

remaining questions are purely legal ones; conversely, a case is

not ripe if further factual development is required.” Id. at 587

(citing Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prod. Co.

, 473 U.S. 568, 581

(1985).

Americas contends that the remedial purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act can be satisfied only by determining Americas's

obligat ions to indemnify under the insurance policy prior to the

pre-trial mediation of the Hidalgo Suits in July 1997. Otherwise,

Americas contends, it will face “the dilemma of choosing between

funding settlements of claims where it believes there is no

coverage, or facing liability in excess of its policy limits.”

Although we do not doubt the possibility that, should the mediation

or an ultimate trial on the merits of the Hidalgo Suits result in

a damages award in excess of the coverage provided by the Travelers

policy, such a dilemma may in fact present itself, such “'some day'

intentions” do not create a justiciable case or controversy. See

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992).

Where, as in the instant case , a judgment has not yet been

rendered against the insured, we have held previously that no

action for declaratory relief w ill lie, as “until such judgment

comes into being, the liabilities are contingent and may never

materialize.” A llstate

, 445 F.2d at 1281 (citing American Fidelity

& Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers’ Mut. Casualty

Ins. Co.

, 280 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1960)). Americas’s potential5

injury is not yet “sufficiently likely to happen to justify

judicial intervention,” Chevron , 987 F.2d at 1153-54, nor are the

remaining issues necessary to determin e its potential liability

“purely legal.” NOPSI , 833 F.2d at 587.

AFFIRMED.