Opinion ID: 626374
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: At filing, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the declaratory judgment action because the question of punitive-damages coverage was unripe. The underlying wrongful-death case was pending at the time, and the court in that case had yet to award punitive damages. See MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007) (prohibiting advisory opinions on “what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts”); Auster Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Stream, 891 F.2d 570, 581 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Unless and until punitive damages are awarded, [the issue of the policies’ coverage of punitive damages] is not ripe for consideration . . . .”). Nevertheless, the instant case ripened prior to the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claim—the decision 4 Nos. 10-5745, 10-6402 Chad Youth, et al v. Colony Nat’l Ins. Co. on appeal—because Colony and the insureds settled with the wrongful-death case plaintiff and stipulated to payments “attributable to punitive damages” for the purposes of determining coverage. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 140 (1974) (“Since ripeness is peculiarly a question of timing, it is the situation now . . . that must govern.”). The settlement does not moot the controversy, because it merely liquidated the damages amount, leaving unsettled the issue on appeal: who must pay. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 371 (1982) (concluding that a controversy remained, notwithstanding parties’ settlement, because the settlement only liquidated the damages amount without settling the liability issue pending on appeal); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 744 (1982). Furthermore, subject-matter jurisdiction exists by virtue of the Declaratory Judgment Act and the diversity jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (allowing a federal court to declare the rights of interested parties seeking declaration in a “case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction”); id. § 1332; see also Am. Compl. ¶¶ 68–78, ECF No. 8 (pleading other claims in controversy involving breach of contract and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act). The parties are diverse and they represent that the disputed coverage amount exceeds $75,000. See Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671–72 (1950) (requiring parties to show the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute underlying the requested declaration); Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818, 822 (6th Cir. 2006) (evaluating whether the amount in controversy, as alleged, “more likely than not” exceeds diversity amount requirement). We therefore proceed to the merits, having appellate jurisdiction under § 1291. 5 Nos. 10-5745, 10-6402 Chad Youth, et al v. Colony Nat’l Ins. Co.