Court Opinion

ID: 9942339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 21:01:28.834621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:58.965610
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13248   Document: 38-1    Date Filed: 02/20/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-13248
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       STAFFORD TRANSPORT OF MICHIGAN, INC,
       d.b.a. CEI,
       d.b.a. Custom Ecology,
       GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,
                             Plaintiﬀs-Counter Defendants-Appellees,
       versus
       CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

                              Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13248      Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 02/20/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-13248

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-05329-VMC
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Appellant, the defendant below, appeals from the district
       court’s order partially granting and partially denying Appellees’
       motion for summary judgment. That order concluded that Appel-
       lees, the plaintiffs below, were covered under an insurance policy
       issued by Appellant, but declined to further award damages. Ap-
       pellant asserts that the order is immediately appealable under 28
       U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Appellees move to dismiss this appeal as frivo-
       lous, arguing that we lack jurisdiction because the district court’s
       order is not immediately appealable.
              We conclude that the district court’s order is not appealable
       under § 1292(a)(1). As an initial matter, the district court did not
       explicitly grant an injunction or make the sort of factual findings
       and legal conclusions that customarily accompany a grant of in-
       junctive relief. See Positano Place at Naples I Condo. Ass’n v. Empire
       Indemnity Ins. Co., 84 F.4th 1241, 1249 (11th Cir. 2023).
             Moreover, the district court’s order is not appealable as hav-
       ing the practical effect of an injunction. See id. at 1251-52. The
       order did not direct Appellant to take any action or immediately
       pay or reimburse Appellees. It instead simply found that
USCA11 Case: 23-13248       Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 02/20/2024      Page: 3 of 3

       23-13248                Opinion of the Court                            3

       Appellant’s insurance policy covers Appellees. For that reason, the
       order also does not impose “a serious, perhaps irreparable, conse-
       quence” and can be effectively reviewed on appeal from a proper
       final judgment. See id. The district court has not determined the
       extent of past or future damages to be awarded to Appellees, and
       Appellant’s liability under the insurance contract can be reviewed
       along with that damages determination.
               Finally, the district court’s order is not the sort of declaratory
       judgment that “sometimes” contains certain injunctive qualities
       that makes it immediately appealable. See James River Ins. Co. v. Ul-
       tratec Spec. Effects Inc., 22 F.4th 1246, 1252 (11th Cir. 2022). While
       the order “provides relief on the merits,” it does not provide any
       express direction to Appellant that is presently enforceable by con-
       tempt. See id.
           Accordingly, Appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal is
       GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.1

       1 The parties’ motions to impose sanctions for damages and costs are
       DENIED. See McLaurin v. Terminix Int’l Co., 13 F.4th 1232, 1243 (11th Cir.
       2021).