IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 96-20906
Summary Calendar
_______________
AMERICAS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants,
SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED
and
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
formerly known as Geco-Prakla Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-96-CV-1451)
_________________________
March 24, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:*
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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.
Americas Insurance Company (“Americas”) appeals a dismissal of
its declaratory judgment action against Schlumberger, Ltd., and
Schlumberger Technologies Corporation f/k/a Geco-Prakla, Inc.
(collectively, “Schlumberger”), for want of subject matter
jurisdiction. Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
This action stems from four lawsuits pending against Schlum-
berger in Texas state court (the “Hidalgo Suits”), in which over
1,000 plaintiffs have alleged that they suffered property damage
and bodily injury during seismographic operations conducted by
Geco-Prakla, a Schlumberger subsidiary. The plaintiffs seek
roughly $200 million in actual and punitive damages. The first of
the lawsuits is scheduled for trial in September 1997, with
mandatory pre-trial mediation to be completed by July 31, 1997.
At all times relevant to the actions alleged in the Hidalgo
Suits, Travelers Indemnity Company provided primary insurance
coverage to Schlumberger under a comprehensive general liability
policy, while Americas provided additional primary coverage. The
Travelers policy has a duty to defend that Schlumberger has invoked
in the Hidalgo Suits. Schlumberger has not requested that Americas
provide a defense, nor does it contend that the Americas policy
contains a defense obligation.
Americas brought the instant action seeking a declaration that
it has a duty neither to defend nor to indemnify Schlumberger for
2
the Hidalgo Suits, as the underlying actions alleged in the Hidalgo
Suits did not result from a covered “occurrence” under the policy.
Further, Americas contends that any duty to indemnify that may have
existed is no longer available to Schlumberger because it failed to
comply with the “timely notice” requirements of the policy. Upon
motion from Schlumberger, the district court dismissed for want of
subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the action was not yet
ripe.
II.
We review the dismissal de novo. See Home Capital Collateral,
Inc. v. FDIC, 96 F.3d 760, 762 (5th Cir. 1996). Although the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, is remedial in nature
and is to be construed liberally to achieve its purposes, it is
designed to permit adjudication of claims only where there is an
actual case or controversy and an adjudication would serve a useful
purpose. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Employers Liability Assurance
Corp., 445 F.2d 1278, 1280 (5th Cir. 1971). A case is ripe for
adjudication where it is not “abstract or hypothetical. The key
considerations are 'the fitness of the issues for judicial decision
and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consider-
ation.'” New Orleans Public Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of
New Orleans (hereinafter “NOPSI”), 833 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.
1987) (citations omitted). “A case is generally ripe if any
3
remaining questions are purely legal ones; conversely, a case is
not ripe if further factual development is required.” Id. at 587
(citing Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prod. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 581
(1985).
Americas contends that the remedial purposes of the Declara-
tory Judgment Act can be satisfied only by determining Americas's
obligations to indemnify under the insurance policy prior to the
pre-trial mediation of the Hidalgo Suits in July 1997. Otherwise,
Americas contends, it will face “the dilemma of choosing between
funding settlements of claims where it believes there is no
coverage, or facing liability in excess of its policy limits.”
Although we do not doubt the possibility that, should the mediation
or an ultimate trial on the merits of the Hidalgo Suits result in
a damages award in excess of the coverage provided by the Travelers
policy, such a dilemma may in fact present itself, such “'some day'
intentions” do not create a justiciable case or controversy. See
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992).
Where, as in the instant case, a judgment has not yet been
rendered against the insured, we have held previously that no
action for declaratory relief will lie, as “until such judgment
comes into being, the liabilities are contingent and may never
materialize.” Allstate, 445 F.2d at 1281 (citing American Fidelity
& Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers’ Mut. Casualty
Ins. Co., 280 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1960)). Americas’s potential
4
injury is not yet “sufficiently likely to happen to justify
judicial intervention,” Chevron, 987 F.2d at 1153-54, nor are the
remaining issues necessary to determine its potential liability
“purely legal.” NOPSI, 833 F.2d at 587.
AFFIRMED.
5