Court Opinion

ID: 9751070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:01:56.671265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:14.920724
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11092     Document: 50-1     Date Filed: 08/28/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-11092
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       MEDMARC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
       PROASSURANCE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
       d.b.a. Noetic Specialty Insurance,
                                Plaintiﬀs-Counter Defendant-Appellants,
       versus
       PETER J. YANOWITCH,

                                 Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee,

       JUAN POCH VIVES,
       YANOWITCH LAW PA,
       A Florida for proﬁt corporation,
USCA11 Case: 22-11092      Document: 50-1       Date Filed: 08/28/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11092

                                                      Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-22822-DPG
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and JILL
       PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Medmarc Casualty Insurance Company and Noetic Spe-
       cialty Insurance appeal the partial summary judgment and judg-
       ment on the pleadings against them and in favor of their insureds,
       Peter Yanowitch and Yanowitch Law, P.A. The insurers sought a
       declaratory judgment that they owed no duty to defend or indem-
       nify the insureds in a state-court action. The district court ruled that
       the insurers owed a duty to defend but declined to rule on the duty
       to indemnify until the state action was resolved. After the insurers
       filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the ruling on the duty to
       defend, the state court dismissed its action with prejudice.
              The insureds move to dismiss this interlocutory appeal as
       moot. They explain that the only issue on appeal is whether the
       insurers owe a duty to defend them in a state action that is no
       longer pending. And they contend that the dismissal of the state
       action with prejudice makes any question about its defense moot.
USCA11 Case: 22-11092      Document: 50-1     Date Filed: 08/28/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-11092               Opinion of the Court                         3

       They also explain that the district court granted a joint motion to
       dismiss the federal action as moot.
              The insurers argue that this appeal is not moot, but they do
       not dispute that they owe the insureds no duty to defend after the
       state action has been dismissed with prejudice. Nor do they deny
       that the district court dismissed the action from which this appeal
       arose. The insurers instead speculate that if the interlocutory order
       is not reversed, the district court may later award the insureds at-
       torneys’ fees under Florida law.
              We agree with the insureds that this interlocutory appeal is
       moot. We cannot provide meaningful relief when the insurers have
       already provided a defense and the underlying state and federal ac-
       tions have since been dismissed. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d
       1330, 1335–36 (11th Cir. 2001). If the district court later were to
       award the insureds attorneys’ fees, we could entertain an appeal of
       the award and review any jurisdictional or other error. But a hypo-
       thetical fee award does not create a controversy about the insurers’
       duty to defend, which is now moot. See Lewis v. Continental Bank
       Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 480–81 (1990) (emphasis added) (“Where it ap-
       pears on the face of the record that the only concrete interest in the
       controversy has terminated, reasonable caution is needed to be
       sure that mooted litigation is not pressed forward.”).
              Because we lack jurisdiction to decide moot questions, Zinni
       v. ER Sols., 692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012), we must dismiss
       this appeal. And we need not vacate the challenged order when the
       underlying action has since been dismissed. See Democratic Exec.
USCA11 Case: 22-11092     Document: 50-1      Date Filed: 08/28/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-11092

       Comm. of Fla. v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 950 F.3d 790, 795
       (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted) (“In the case of interloc-
       utory appeals . . . the usual practice is [] to dismiss the appeal as
       moot and not vacate the order appealed from.”).
             We GRANT the motion to DISMISS this appeal as moot.