Opinion
No. 10-1650-cv .
March 14, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
John M. Woods (John R. Stevenson, on the brief), Clyde Co. U.S. LLP, New York, NY, for appellant.
John Anthony Vincent Nicoletti (William Matthew Fennell, on the brief), Nicoletti Hornig Sweeney, New York, NY, for Appellee.
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant Water Quality Insurance Syndicate ("WQIS") appeals from the district court's March 29, 2010 grant of partial judgment on the pleadings in favor of plaintiff American Commercial Lines LLC ("ACL"), determining the scope of WQIS's obligation under maritime pollution insurance policy number 40-27083 (the "Policy") to reimburse ACL for costs incurred investigating and defending against claims arising from a July 23, 2008 oil spill. WQIS submits that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3), because the district court's interlocutory order determined the rights and liabilities of the parties in an admiralty case in which appeals from final decrees are allowed. "We have an independent obligation to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte." College Standard Magazine v. Student Ass'n of State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 610 F.3d 33, 35 (2d Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that because the district court's order did not conclusively determine the rights and liabilities of the parties, jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(3) is lacking, and the appeal must be dismissed.
Section 1292(a)(3) provides that the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from "[i]nterlocutory decrees of . . . district courts or the judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." This provision "has its origins in the once common admiralty practice of referring the determination of damages to a master or commissioner after resolving the issue of liability." Becker v. Poling Transp. Corp., 356 F.3d 381, 387 (2d Cir. 2004). This grant of jurisdiction is construed narrowly, such that "jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(3) should only be exercised where the order at issue conclusively determines the parties' substantive rights and obligations." Thypin Steel Co. v. Asoma Corp., 215 F.3d 273, 280 (2d Cir. 2000) (emphasis added).
Review of the record in this case reveals that the district court's ruling did not conclusively determine the parties' rights and obligations, but rather only the scope of WQIS's contractual obligation under the terms of the Policy to reimburse ACL's investigation and defense costs. In its answer to ACL's complaint, WQIS asserted defenses which, if sustained, would require judgment in WQIS's favor, notwithstanding the district court's resolution of the meaning of the disputed Policy language in ACL's favor. See Answer at 7. Open questions therefore remain concerning the parties' ultimate rights and obligations.
Accordingly, appellate jurisdiction pursuant to § 1292(a)(3) over WQIS's appeal of the district court's March 29, 2010, 2010 WL 1379763, order is lacking. The appeal is DISMISSED.