Opinion ID: 689957
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Will maintaining separate actions result in piecemeal litigation?

Text: 21 The Supreme Court cases make it clear that this is the predominant factor. See, e.g., Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 16, 21, 103 S.Ct. at 937, 939-40. The policies underlying Colorado River abstention are considerations of '[w]ise judicial administration,' giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation. Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817, 96 S.Ct. at 1246 (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 221, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952)). 4 Our cases have advanced this policy by favoring the most complete action. See, e.g., USF & G, 21 F.3d at 263 (state action, unlike federal action, included all parties in a declaratory judgment action involving multiple insurers and overlapping coverage and federal action stayed) 5 ; Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Missouri Elec. Works, 23 F.3d 1372, 1375 (8th Cir.1994) (in dispute with two insurers, federal action against one insurer stayed to allow state action involving both insurers to proceed). 22 As we noted in a similar case, the interest of an insured in binding as many of its insurers as possible to a single adjudication is a factor strongly weighing in favor of maintenance of an inclusive action. Insurance Co. of the State of Penn. v. Syntex, 964 F.2d 829, 834-35 (8th Cir.1992). The same principle that led us in Syntex to disapprove of the strategic omission of nondiverse insurers to create diversity applies with equal force to the strategic splitting of a cause of action by omitting policies to defeat diversity. 6 Just as we found that the inclusive action (the state action) should go forward in Syntex, we find that the inclusive action (the federal action) should now proceed. The federal action can resolve issues relating to all the CGL policies, whereas the Saline County action can only resolve issues relating to one policy. We conclude that the issuance of a stay in the federal action will do nothing to reduce piecemeal litigation. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. Accordingly, we believe that the policy of avoiding piecemeal litigation heavily weighs against abstention. 23