F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
February 2, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
NAUTILUS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 05-5076
v.
8160 SOUTH MEMORIAL DRIVE,
LLC, doing business as Banana
Joe’s,
Defendant,
and
GREG BAYOUTH; DEANA
HASTINGS.
Defendants-Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. 04-CV-448-K)
Submitted on the briefs:
A. Laurie Koller, Carr & Carr, Attorneys, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants-
Appellants.
Robert P. Coffey, LaCourse, Davis, Coffey & Gudgel, P.L.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before McCONNELL, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment in an insurance dispute
founded on diversity jurisdiction. We affirm. *
B ACKGROUND
Nautilus Insurance Company sued Greg Bayouth, Deana Hastings, and its
insured, 8160 South Memorial Drive, LLC (doing business as Banana Joe’s), for
declaratory relief in federal district court, alleging that its duty to defend and
indemnify was not triggered by Bayouth and Hastings’ state lawsuit against
Banana Joe’s. Nautilus indicated that Bayouth and Hastings were seeking
damages in state court for being struck by a Banana Joe’s employee and for
Banana Joe’s negligent hiring, training, and supervision of that employee.
Nautilus’s policy excludes from coverage bodily injury caused by “any alleged
assault and battery” or the “negligent hiring, placement, training or supervision
arising from actual or alleged assault or battery.” Aplt. App. at 53.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
Bayouth and Hastings answered Nautilus’s complaint and were deposed.
Banana Joe’s also answered, but later joined with Nautilus in filing an
“Application to Withdraw Answer and Stipulation of the Parties,” id. at 72. In
the application, Banana Joe’s and Nautilus “agree[d] that with the Withdrawal of
[Banana Joe’s] answer, [Nautilus] is entitled to a declaratory judgment” finding
that Nautilus’s policy “does not cover the incident as described in” Bayouth and
Hastings’ lawsuit. Id. Banana Joe’s and Nautilus submitted a proposed order
along with the application. Bayouth and Hastings filed an objection, summarily
stating that the proposed order “deprives them of due process,” “represents
collusion between [Nautilus] and [Banana Joe’s],” and lacks “a factual basis upon
which to base a Declaratory Judgment.” Id. at 74. The district court entered the
order, allowing Banana Joe’s to withdraw its answer and granting Nautilus a
declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Banana Joe’s.
Bayouth and Hastings appeal.
D ISCUSSION
The Declaratory Judgment Act provides, in relevant part:
In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court
of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may
declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party
seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be
sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a
final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.
-3-
28 U.S.C. § 2201. A district court’s decision to exercise its discretion and issue a
declaratory judgment “will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse of
. . . discretion.” Kunkel v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 866 F.2d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir.
1989). 1
Bayouth and Hastings urge us to “assume that the District Court decided
that [they] were not necessary parties,” Aplt. Br. at 11, and to then follow Federal
Kemper Insurance Co. v. Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 353-54 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding
that the insurer’s declaratory relief action presented a justiciable controversy for
the injured parties even though the insured tortfeasor had suffered a default
judgment), Harris v. Quinones, 507 F.2d 533, 536-37 (10th Cir. 1974)
(concluding that res judicata did not bar the litigation of coverage issues between
the insurer, the “omnibus insured,” and the injured party where the insurer had
previously litigated those issues to a default judgment against the “named
insured”), and Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. v. Schulte, 302 F.2d 174, 177 (7th
Cir. 1962) (holding that the district court erred in dismissing the injured party
from the insured’s declaratory relief action based on a default judgment entered
1
But the substance of a declaratory judgment is reviewed just like any other
district court decision: “legal questions are reviewed de novo, and findings of
fact are reviewed with a more deferential standard.” 12 James Wm. Moore,
Moore’s Federal Practice § 57.101[2] (3d ed. 2005). Because Bayouth and
Hastings tender no challenge to the accuracy of the district court’s insurance
policy interpretation, coverage issues are beyond our review.
-4-
against the insured and the insured’s tortfeasor son). We will not indulge such an
assumption for two reasons. First, Bayouth and Hastings said nothing about
necessary parties when they objected to Nautilus’s proposed order for a
declaratory judgment. See Hill v. Kansas Gas Serv. Co., 323 F.3d 858, 866
(10th Cir. 2003) (stating that we generally do not consider arguments raised for
the first time on appeal). Second, to the extent that the insurance coverage issue
between Nautilus and Banana Joe’s created an actual controversy between
Nautilus and Bayouth and Hastings, see Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil
Co., 312 U.S. 270, 274 (1941) (holding that there is an actual controversy
between an insurer and the party injured by the insured), that controversy was
resolved by the declaratory judgment. Nowhere did the district court suggest that
Bayouth and Hastings were not necessary parties or that their interests were
merely derivative of Banana Joe’s. Nor was there any default judgment.
Consequently, Rauscher, Harris, and Schulte do not apply here. 2
Bayouth and Hastings next contend that there “was not enough of a factual
record developed to enable the [c]ourt to issue a declaratory judgment.” Aplt. Br.
2
Bayouth and Hastings state in a heading of their brief that they were denied
“an opportunity to be heard.” Aplt. Br. at 9. They also mention in the text that
there is an issue as to “whether all necessary parties were ever joined in the
present case,” given that the Banana Joe’s employee who allegedly battered them
“was not named in the federal court action.” Id. at 14. But we do not reach
issues unaccompanied by any argument. Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949,
953-54 (10th Cir. 1992).
-5-
at 17. But they do not identify any missing facts necessary to resolve coverage
issues, such as the applicability of the policy’s assault and battery exclusions.
While district courts should “refrain from giving a declaration unless there is a
full-bodied record developed through adequate adversary proceedings with all
interested parties before the court,” 10B Charles A. Wright et al., Federal
Practice & Procedure § 2759, at 551-52 (3d ed. 1998), we will not presume that a
declaratory judgment rests on an inadequate record without some suggestion how
a more fully developed record would compel a different result.
Bayouth and Hastings’ final argument is not entirely clear. They state that
“[o]nce Banana Joe’s withdrew its answer, it no longer had a personal stake in the
outcome of the case,” and therefore, “that makes the action taken below
collusive.” Aplt. Br. at 19. They then explain:
When Banana Joe’s withdrew its Answer, there was no longer
a justiciable controversy between Nautilus and Banana Joe’s. Thus,
without the presence of Bayouth and Hastings, the District Court did
not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment
Act’s “actual controversy” requirement to enter [the declaratory
judgment]. If Bayouth and Hastings were not parties at the time the
Court entered its [judgment], then the proper course of the Court
would have been to dismiss the action.
Id. at 21-22 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2201). Initially, we question the premise that
Bayouth and Hastings were somehow absent from the proceedings below. They
both appeared and filed an answer. That fact did not change once Banana Joe’s
withdrew its answer. Bayouth and Hastings’ further characterization of the action
-6-
below as “collusive,” id. at 19, is similarly unavailing. A collusive action is “[a]n
action between two parties who have no actual controversy, being merely for the
purpose of determining a legal question or receiving a precedent that might prove
favorable in related litigation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 32 (8th ed. 2004). We
fail to see how Banana Joe’s withdrawal of its answer, simultaneous to the district
court’s grant of a declaratory judgment, meant that there was no bona fide
controversy over which the district court could have exercised jurisdiction.
Banana Joe’s appeared in the action, filed an answer, and apparently remained
defiant until after the depositions of Bayouth and Hastings. And even if this were
a case in which Banana Joe’s “has had no active participation, over which [it] has
exercised no control, and the expense of which [it] has not borne,” so as to
indicate collusion, see United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302, 305 (1943),
Bayouth and Hastings’ participation would have supplied sufficient adversity to
compensate for any adversity lost when Banana Joe’s withdrew its answer.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in
granting Nautilus a declaratory judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
-7-