## Facts

- Maryland Casualty Company issued Pacific Coal & Oil Co. a standard liability policy.
- The policy required Maryland Casualty to indemnify Pacific for sums Pacific became obligated to pay for injury or property damage caused by automobiles “hired by the insured,” and to defend covered suits.
- During the policy period, a collision occurred between a car driven by Orteca and a truck driven by a Pacific employee.
- Orteca was injured and sued Pacific in an Ohio state court; the tort action had not gone to judgment.
- Maryland Casualty filed a federal action under the Declaratory Judgment Act against Pacific and Orteca, alleging that the truck involved was not “hired” by Pacific because Pacific had sold it to the employee under a conditional sales contract.
- Maryland Casualty sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Pacific for the accident, and also requested a temporary injunction restraining the state-court tort case while the federal coverage action proceeded.
- Orteca demurred in the federal action, arguing there was no “actual controversy” between him and Maryland Casualty before he obtained a judgment against Pacific.
- The district court sustained Orteca’s demurrer, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review to address justiciability in this setting.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland Casualty’s declaratory judgment complaint alleged an Article III “actual controversy” with Orteca (the injured claimant), as well as with Pacific (the insured), while the state tort action was pending and before judgment.
2. Whether the federal court could enjoin the ongoing Ohio state tort action pending resolution of the federal declaratory judgment case, in light of § 265 of the Judicial Code (the predecessor to the Anti-Injunction Act).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.
- The Court held the complaint alleged an “actual controversy” sufficient for declaratory judgment jurisdiction, including between Maryland Casualty and Orteca.
- The Court stated that an injunction restraining the state-court proceedings was barred by § 265 of the Judicial Code.
- The case was allowed to proceed as a federal declaratory judgment action, but not as a vehicle to stop the state tort suit.

## Legal Principles

- The Declaratory Judgment Act supplies a remedy; it does not enlarge federal judicial power beyond Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement.
- The existence of an “actual controversy” depends on whether the facts show “a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”
- A coverage dispute between an insurer and its insured is justiciable when the insured is facing a pending tort suit that may trigger defense and indemnity obligations.
- An injured claimant can also be part of a justiciable controversy with the insurer before judgment when state law gives the claimant a path, after obtaining an unsatisfied judgment against the insured, to proceed against the insurer; the claimant’s interest is not merely speculative.
- Section 265 of the Judicial Code bars a federal court from enjoining ongoing state-court proceedings except as authorized by statute; the Declaratory Judgment Act does not create an exception.

## Conclusion

Maryland Casualty held that an insurer’s federal suit for a declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify—filed while the claimant’s state tort action against the insured remained pending—presented an Article III “actual controversy” not only with the insured but also with the injured claimant, given the claimant’s potential statutory ability to reach the policy after an unsatisfied judgment; however, the federal court lacked authority under § 265 of the Judicial Code to enjoin the state-court tort litigation.


Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 61 S. Ct. 510, 85 L. Ed. 826 (1941)