![]() 'resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action'. To be appealable under the Cohen doctrine, the order must " 'conclusively determine the disputed question'. Some stays are included in this sub-class of final orders. However, under the "collateral order doctrine," a small class of decisions that do not end the litigation are nonetheless considered final for purposes of Sec. 11, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (stays usually not final "since most stays do not put the plaintiff 'effectively out of court' "). Therefore, they do not ordinarily fit within the general definition of final orders appealable under 28 U.S.C.A. Most orders granting or denying a stay do not end the litigation. Accordingly, we will vacate the stay and direct the district court, on remand, to dismiss this portion of Terra Nova's complaint. This determination does not depend on any facts at issue in the state court actions, which do not present the issue of Terra Nova's duty to defend, and the district court therefore erred in staying resolution of the duty to defend. Since Terra Nova disclaimed any desire to go beyond the pleadings in the state court suits, it is not presently entitled to the declaration it seeks. ![]() From the pleadings in the underlying tort actions and the policy, the district court could not say that Terra Nova would not have to indemnify 900 Bar. Under Pennsylvania law, an insurer has a duty to defend if the complaint alleges facts that support recovery within the policy, at least until the action has been confined to claims that are not covered. With respect to the duty to defend, this was error. The district court stayed this action to avoid finding facts that will also be the subject of determination in the state court actions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |