NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 19

- 3291

_____________ AMERICAN BUILDERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

v. CUSTOM INSTALLATIONS CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS GUARANTY FUND; JAMES SCOTT,

Intervenors in District Court

_____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania (District Court No.: 3

- 15

- cv
- 00295) Dis trict Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

_____________________________________

Argued on April 22, 2020 (Opinion filed May 29, 20 20) Before: HARDIMAN, RENDELL, and FISHER, Circuit Judges John A. Bass, Esq. Ira L. Podheiser, Esq. Ralph M. Monico, Esq. (Argued) Burns White 48 26th Street2

Burns White Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Counsel for Appellant
Martin A. Dietz, Esq. Suite 505 304 Ross Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Counsel for Appellee Bruce P. Merenstein, Esq. (Argued) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis 1600 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Intervenor Appellee Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund
Mat thew S. Faher, Esq. (Argued) Rudberg Law Offices 2107 Sidney Street Pittsburgh, PA 15203

Counsel for Intervenor Appellee James Scott3 OPINIO N *

RENDELL , Circuit Judge

. American Builders Insurance Company ( “ American Builders ” ) appeals the District
Court’s dismis sal of it s lawsuit against its policyholde r , Custom Installations Contracting Services, Inc. ( “ Custom ” )

. W e will affirm the District Court’s judgmen t. 1 In July 2015, American Builders issued a workers’ compensation insurance policy
to Custom

. 2 A. 23 , 66
. American Builders alleges that during the policy application process, Custom falsely represented that it did not perform roofing work. A. 23 , 66
- 74
. Several months later, d uring the polic y period, a Custom employee, James Scott, Jr. , was injured on the job and subsequently made a claim for workers’ compensation benefits , which initiated a proceeding before the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.
A. 24 , 74. American Builders acc epted responsibility for Scott’s workers’ compensation claim by issuing a Notice of Compensation Payable to Mr. Scott. Appellants’ Br. at 3.
American Builders continues to pay Mr. Scott and his medical providers under the

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
1 The District Court had jurisdiction because a “federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction.” Orie v. Dist. At t ’ y Allegheny Cty. , 946 F.3d 187, 190 n.7 (3d Cir. 2019) ( quoting Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. , Inc. v. Wood , 592 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2010)). We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a final order of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. 2 Because we write for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and the procedural posture to date, we only include what is necessary to explain our decision.4

insurance policy it issued to Custom and states that, at the time of this appeal, it ha s paid

out more than $2,500,000 in wage benefits and compensation for medical ca r e to
Mr. Scott and his medical providers

. Appellants’ Br. at 4.
While the workers’ compensation proceeding was pendin g, American Builders
filed this lawsuit against Custom

. A. 22
- 23. In a two

- count complaint, American Builders alleged that Mr. Scott’s injury occurred while he was performing roofing work , despite Custom’s representations that it did not do any such work

. A. 23, 66
- 79. American Builders sought a declaration that, among other things, “the false and inaccurate facts provided by Custom during the [ a ] pplication process induced American [Builders] to sell and issue the P olicy to Custom,” that “American [ Builders] is entitled to rescind the Policy based on

. . . mutual mistakes of fact,” that “the Policy is hereby
RESCINDED and rendered VOID AB INITIO ,” and that “American [Builders] has no legal or contractual obligation to Custom or its employees, including [Mr.] Scott, under the rescinded Policy, or under any theory of law or equity.” App. 76. American Builders
also included a cause of action for insurance fraud

. A. 23 , 75
- 79. A merican Builders eventually moved for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim

. A. 23. Custom did not oppose the motion , and the District Court accordingly granted summary judgment to American Builders. A. 45, 46, 49.
American Builders then fi led several petition s in Mr. Scott’s workers’ compensation proceeding

. A.24, Appellant’s Br. at 6. American Builders sought to
terminate its obligations to pay Mr. Scott wage benefits or make payments to his medical providers, or , in the alternative, asked for a review of Mr. Scott’s workers’ compensation5

benefits. A.24, Appellant’s Br. at 6. The other parties to Mr. Scott’s workers’ compensation proceeding opposed the petitions in various ways , and th e administrative law judge issued a temporary stay

. A. 24, Appellant ’ s Br. at 6. American Builders then returned to federal court and filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in this case asking the District Court to enjoin all parties involved in Mr. Scott’s workers ’ compensation case , including
Mr. Sc ott and Mr. Scott’s medical provider, UPMC Mercy, from attempting to circumvent enforcement of the Court’s summary judgment order granting rescission of the insurance policy. A. 25
. In response, the District Court issued an order requesting briefing on w hethe r American Builders’ lawsuit was appropriately before the District
Court

. A. 25. American Builders, Mr. Scott, UPMC Mercy, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, and the Pennsylvania Uninsured Employers Guaranty
Fund submit ted brief s and o ther materials in response to this order

. 3 A. 25
- 26
. American
Builders then conceded that its motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was moot and filed a motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). A. 27
. The District Court dismissed and vacated its order granting summary judgment to
American Builders. App. 48

. It ruled that “American Builders’ rescission claim must be pursued before the [Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation] and the ALJ.”

3 Mr. Scott, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, and the Pennsylvania Uninsured E mployers Guaranty Fund have also intervened in this appeal and filed briefs in opposition to American Builders’ opening brief.6

App. 55

. The District Court reasoned that if the Pennsylvania workers ’ compensation system allows “ workers’ compensation insurance companies [to] receive the benefit of being shielded from separate bad faith lawsui ts, ” American Builders, a workers’ compensation insurance company, “ also cannot file separate lawsuits for related
insurance claims” like the declaratory judgment and fraud claims at issue in this case. App. 57

. In reaching this conclusion, the District C ourt relied on our decision in Winterberg v. Transportation Insurance Company , in which we held that the exclusivity provision of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 481(a), barred an injured worker’s insurance bad faith and ot her common law and statutory claims against her employer’s workers’ compensation insurance provider. 72 F.3d 318, 320

- 21 (3d Cir. 1995). The District Court highlighted our statement in Winterberg that “[b]ecause of the historical background for Pennsylvania’s [workers’] compensation system, courts have been very cautious about permitting common law litigation in matters arguably connected
with work

- related injuries.” Id. at 322 (citing Kuney v. PMA Ins

. Co

. , 578 A.2d 1285 , 1286 (Pa. 1990) ) , in which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disallowed an employee ’ s tort action against his employer ’s insurer for defrauding the employee of his workers’ compensation benefits). American Builders then timely appealed the Dis trict Court’s
dismissal of its lawsuit.7

W e agree with the District Court’s reasoning and disposition of this case. 4 We
continue to approve of our observation in Winterberg , quoted by the District Court, that
courts “ have been very cautious about permittin g common law litigation in matters arguably connected with work

- related injuries.” Id. at 322. We are also mindful of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ’s admonition s in Kuney that the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation statute was “ designed and intended to establish exclusive jurisdiction, practice and procedure in all matters pertaining to such subject matte r,” 578 A.2d at 1287 (quoting American Ca s. Co. of Reading v. Kligerm an , 74 A.2d 169, 172 ( Pa. 1950) ), and that “[w] he n the allegations of a claim have as their ultimate basis an injury compensable
under the [Workers ’ ] Compensation Act, the claim must be considered within the
framework of the statute , ” id

. Accordingly, w e will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

4 The parties dispute the standard of review. We do not rule on this question because we reach the same result whether we review de novo , s ee , e.g. , United States v. Dohou , 948 F.3d 621, 623 (3d Cir. 2020) (“We review the District Court’s jurisdictional holding de novo.”) (citing United States v. Charleswell , 456 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2006 )), or for abuse of discretion , s ee Reifer v. Westport Ins. Corp. , 751 F.3d 129, 13 7

- 3 8 (3d Cir. 2014) (reviewing district court decision to decline jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim for abuse of discretion).