Stafford Transport of Michigan, Inc., et al. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13248
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
STAFFORD TRANSPORT OF MICHIGAN, INC,
d.b.a. CEI,
d.b.a. Custom Ecology,
GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees,
versus
CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13248 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13248
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-05329-VMC
____________________
Before WILSON, BRANCH , and G RANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, the defendant below, appeals from the district
court’s order partially granting and partially denying Appellees’
motion for summary judgment. That order concluded that Appel-
lees, the plaintiffs below, were covered under an insurance policy
issued by Appellant, but declined to further award damages. Ap-
pellant asserts that the order is immediately appealable under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Appellees move to dismiss this appeal as frivo-
lous, arguing that we lack jurisdiction because the district court’s
order is not immediately appealable.
We conclude that the district court’s order is not appealable
under § 1292(a)(1). As an initial matter, the district court did not
explicitly grant an injunction or make the sort of factual findings
and legal conclusions that customarily accompany a grant of in-
junctive relief. See Positano Place at Naples I Condo. Ass’n v. Empire
Indemnity Ins. Co., 84 F.4th 1241, 1249 (11th Cir. 2023).
Moreover, the district court’s order is not appealable as hav-
ing the practical effect of an injunction. See id. at 1251-52. The
order did not direct Appellant to take any action or immediately
pay or reimburse Appellees. It instead simply found that
USCA11 Case: 23-13248 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13248 Opinion of the Court 3
Appellant’s insurance policy covers Appellees. For that reason, the
order also does not impose “a serious, perhaps irreparable, conse-
quence” and can be effectively reviewed on appeal from a proper
final judgment. See id. The district court has not determined the
extent of past or future damages to be awarded to Appellees, and
Appellant’s liability under the insurance contract can be reviewed
along with that damages determination.
Finally, the district court’s order is not the sort of declaratory
judgment that “sometimes” contains certain injunctive qualities
that makes it immediately appealable. See James River Ins. Co. v. Ul-
tratec Spec. Effects Inc., 22 F.4th 1246, 1252 (11th Cir. 2022). While
the order “provides relief on the merits,” it does not provide any
express direction to Appellant that is presently enforceable by con-
tempt. See id.
Accordingly, Appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal is
GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.1
1 The parties’ motions to impose sanctions for damages and costs are
DENIED. See McLaurin v. Terminix Int’l Co., 13 F.4th 1232, 1243 (11th Cir.
2021).
USCA11 Case: 23-13248 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --