HNRK Coverage Corner
On June 13, 2023, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Admiral Ins. Co. v. Fire-Dex, LLC, Case No. 22-3922, affirming a district court’s order declining to exercise jurisdiction over an insurer’s declaratory judgment action on the ground that the action turned on a “novel issue of Ohio insurance law” that should be resolved by the Ohio state courts.
At issue in Fire-Dex was whether illnesses arising from exposure to PFAS—so-called “forever chemicals”—in a manufacturer’s finished products constitute an “occupational disease” under Ohio law. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the federal district court decision declining to exercise jurisdiction over the case, explaining:
No party cites an Ohio decision addressing the issue, nor are we aware of one. In the absence of guidance from Ohio courts for us to follow, Admiral’s theories of liability under Ohio state law implicate concerns of comity. States, it bears reminding are the master of their own law, subject to certain federal constitutional and statutory restraints. So when unanswered questions of state law raise their heads, state courts are best suited to answer them, a proposition that has long been embraced in a host of settings. The more novel the issue, the less guidance federal courts will have in interpreting state law. And the lesser the guidance, the greater the likelihood that a federal court’s conclusion would be out of step with a state court’s resolution of the issue. Remember, the district court was asked to “declare” how Ohio law would interpret contractual language addressing liability to non-employees for PFAS exposure. Doing so without any relevant state-imposed guardrails would make its journey a riskier one. For these reasons, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to hold that these issues first need to be decided by Ohio state courts.
Especially so, we note, as this case involves a dispute over insurance law. By and large, insurance rules and regulations are reserved to the states for crafting. It is thus no surprise that we consistently counsel district courts to decline jurisdiction when asked to decide unresolved insurance coverage issues.
Although insurance coverage litigation is frequently venued in federal court, questions of policy interpretation are generally governed by state law. And, as this decision illustrates, federal courts may be hesitant weigh in on novel questions of state law. Rather than declining jurisdiction altogether, federal courts may also certify questions to the state supreme court. The Second Circuit has often certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals in insurance matters. Under New York law, at least, this option is not available to the federal district courts.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Is Carbon a “Pollutant”? — The Supreme Courts of Alaska and Hawaii Receive Certified Questions Regarding Scope of Pollution Exclusions in Liability Policies
- Court Rules That D&O Policy’s “Bump-Up” Exclusion Does Not Apply to Merger Transaction
- Eleventh Circuit Rules Insurer Cannot Recoup Defense Costs Under Duty to Defend Policy
- Federal Court Declines to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Insurer’s Declaratory Judgment Action That Raised “Novel Issue of Ohio Insurance Law”
- Bankruptcy Court Lifts Automatic Stay to Permit Officers of Silicon Valley Bank to Access D&O Coverage
- E&O Policy Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Claim Against Law Firm Arising from Third Party’s Misappropriation of Client’s Funds
- New Jersey Appellate Court Holds That Policy’s War Exclusion Did Not Apply to State-Sponsored Cyberattack
- New York Court Discusses Appellate Division Split Over Recoupment of Defense Costs Under a Duty to Defend Policy
- Delaware Law Governs D&O Policy Issued to Delaware Corporation Doing Business Outside the State
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
Popular Categories
- Occurrence/Accident
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- D&O Policies
- Policy Exclusions
- Pollution Exclusion
- CGL Policies
- E&O Policies
- Cyber Coverage
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Excess Insurance
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018