Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Doma Title Insurance, Inc. and Rehabit DC, LLC’s motion to dismiss an insurer’s declaratory judgment action. The court held that the alleged failure of the insureds to cooperate in defending an underlying lawsuit presented a concrete controversy regarding the insurer’s duties to defend and indemnify. The court concluded that the complaint plausibly stated a claim for declaratory relief and that the defendants’ arguments concerning prejudice and the merits of coverage were better addressed at a later stage.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Decision date
February 10, 2026
Docket number
Civil Action No. 24-1657 (ABJ)
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an actual controversy supporting declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
- Whether the alleged facts concerning Lexicon and Brown's failure to cooperate were sufficient at the pleading stage to permit Princeton Excess to seek a declaration concerning its duties to defend and indemnify.
- Whether the declaratory-judgment action was premature or inequitable because it could prejudice Doma and Rehabit.
Holdings
- The complaint plausibly alleged an actual controversy because Lexicon and Brown had been sued, Princeton Excess's policy potentially required it to defend and indemnify them, and the insureds' alleged noncooperation created a concrete dispute concerning the insurer's obligations.
- The motion to dismiss was properly denied because the complaint stated a plausible claim for a declaration of rights; the court did not need to decide on a motion to dismiss whether Princeton Excess would ultimately prevail on the duty to defend, duty to indemnify, or alleged failure to cooperate.
- The action was not premature or inequitable merely because Doma and Rehabit claimed they might be prejudiced; declaratory relief could proceed where the coverage dispute was concrete and the underlying action had been stayed by agreement pending resolution of the coverage case.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…