NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2318 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

ALPHA PSI CHI, INC., et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

FLORIAN SMITH’S MOTOR VEHICLE collided with Joseph Martin’s

motor vehicle in December 2010; Florian Smith died due to the

injuries suffered in the collision (“Collision”). See Smith v.

Martin, No. L-1582-11 (N.J. Super. Ct., Mercer County) (“State

Ct. Dkt.”). In February or March 2011, Linda Smith, on behalf of

the Estate of Florian Smith and pursuant to the New Jersey Tort

Claims Act, filed a notice of claim naming, among others, Alpha

Psi Chi, Inc. (“APC”), which is a college fraternity where Martin

allegedly became intoxicated before the Collision. Id.

APC’S INSURER — Maryland Casualty Company (“MCC”) — brought

this action in April 2011 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § (“Section”)

1332 against APC and the Estate of Florian Smith for a judgment

declaring that MCC is not obligated to defend and indemnify APC

in a potential civil action instituted against APC (“Declaratory

Judgment Action”). (See id.)

LINDA SMITH brought an action in New Jersey state court

(“State Tort Action”) in June 2011 to recover damages for, inter

Case 3:11-cv-02318-MLC -LHG Document 26 Filed 12/06/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 90
alia, Florian Smith’s personal injuries and wrongful death. See

State Ct. Dkt. Linda Smith named as defendants in the State Tort

Action, among others, (1) Martin, and (2) an entity listed as

“DEF College/Fraternity”, which refers to APC. Id. The State

Tort Action remains pending. Id.1

MCC could either (1) be named in the State Tort Action as a

defendant, as a third-party defendant, or in some other capacity,

or (2) bring the declaratory-judgment claims in the appropriate

state court and seek to have them consolidated with the State

Tort Action. A determination as to any claim in the Declaratory

Judgment Action would necessarily affect — and thus interfere

with — the State Tort Action. As a result, this Court must

abstain from adjudicating the Declaratory Judgment Action. See

Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 280-90 (1995) (upholding

Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491 (1942)); see also Atl.

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gula, 84 Fed.Appx. 173, 174-75 (3d Cir. 2003)

(affirming judgment dismissing complaint for, inter alia, reasons

discussed above).

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION (1) is, as the Court’s

shorthand reference suggests, a declaratory-judgment action

 Five of the parties appearing in some capacity in the 1

Declaratory Judgment Action are represented by counsel. Counsel

failed to advise the Court that the State Tort Action was

pending, in violation of Local Civil Rule 11.2. The Court

discovered that the State Tort Action was pending through

independent research.

2

Case 3:11-cv-02318-MLC -LHG Document 26 Filed 12/06/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 91
involving insurance-coverage issues under state law, (2) concerns

issues that will be raised in the State Tort Action, and (3)

could be adjudicated by the same judge overseeing the State Tort

Action. As a result, the Complaint in the Declaratory Judgment

Action should be dismissed. See Williams v. State Auto Prop. &

Cas. Ins. Co., No. 08-4983, 2009 WL 1119502, at *2-3 (E.D. Pa.

Apr. 24, 2009) (declining to exercise jurisdiction over

declaratory-judgment action concerning insurance coverage, and

noting “the possibility of interfering with the state court cases

regarding the same matter is substantial” because the conduct of

certain parties would need to be addressed in both the underlying

state action and the declaratory-judgment action). The dismissal

will be without prejudice to MCC to recommence the Declaratory

Judgment Action in the appropriate state court within 30 days, as

the limitations period is tolled by the filing of a federal

complaint. See Jaworowski v. Ciasulli, 490 F.3d 331, 333-36 (3d

Cir. 2007); Galligan v. Westfield Ctr. Serv., 82 N.J. 188, 191-95

(1980).

IT IS “irrelevant” that the Declaratory Judgment Action may

have been brought earlier than the State Tort Action. See State

Auto Ins. Cos. v. Summy, 234 F.3d 131, 136 (3d Cir. 2001)

(directing district court to dismiss insurer’s declaratoryjudgment complaint, even though it was filed before insured

brought state-court action); see Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.

3

Case 3:11-cv-02318-MLC -LHG Document 26 Filed 12/06/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 92
Bennett, No. 05-4097, 2006 WL 932176, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 10,

2006) (declining to exercise jurisdiction in insurer’s

declaratory-judgment action based on other party’s mere “stated

intent” to bring state-court action). The Court, in view of the

pending State Tort Action, must “promote judicial economy by

avoiding duplicative and piecemeal litigation”. Summy, 234 F.3d

at 135. It appears that “[t]he desire of insurance companies and

their insureds to receive declarations in federal court on

matters of purely state law has no special call on the federal

forum”. Id. at 136. For good cause appearing, the Court will

issue an appropriate order and judgment.2

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: December 6, 2011

 MCC is advised, as to the claims for declaratory relief, 2

that the Declaratory Judgment Act, Section 2201-2202, “does not

and cannot serve as an independent basis for federal jurisdiction”. 

TIG Ins. Co. v. Reliable Research Co., 334 F.3d 630, 634 (7th

Cir. 2003); see Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. 900 Bar, 887 F.2d 1213,

1218 n.2 (3d Cir. 1989) (same).

4

Case 3:11-cv-02318-MLC -LHG Document 26 Filed 12/06/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 93