N Ctrl Oil Corp v. R & B Falcon Drill ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 00-30283
NORTH CENTRAL OIL CORPORATION; COMMERCIAL
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
R & B FALCON DRILLING USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(99-CV-3851-C)
December 4, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges, and KENT, District
Judge.*
PER CURIAM:**
North Central Oil Corporation (“North Central”) and Commercial
Underwriters Insurance Company (“CUIC”) appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice their complaint for declaratory
*
District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
relief against R & B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc. (“Falcon”).
On August 30, 1999, Ordie and Betty Perro sued Falcon in
Louisiana state court, seeking recovery for an alleged injury
aboard a Falcon vessel. On November 16, Falcon filed a Third Party
Demand against North Central and certain underwriters, claiming
that North Central owes Falcon a duty to defend and to indemnify
under the Master Drilling Agreement.1 On December 23, 1999, North
Central and CUIC filed suit in federal court, requesting a
declaratory judgment that North Central and CUIC do not owe Falcon
a duty to defend and to indemnify. Subsequently, Falcon moved to
dismiss North Central and CUIC’s complaint. After weighing the
factors germane to whether a district court should entertain a
declaratory action, as outlined in Travelers Insurance Co. v.
Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., 996 F.2d 774, 778 (5th Cir.
1993), the district court found that those factors militated in
favor of abstention.
We review the district court’s decision for abuse of
discretion. Id. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, relevant
portions of the record, the oral arguments of counsel, and the
Travelers factors, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the district court’s order is
1
Ultimately, those underwriters were dismissed from the state
court suit, and CUIC was later impleaded.
2
AFFIRMED.2
2
In light of our decision, we dismiss as moot any motions carried
with this appeal.
3