9th Cir.;
15-16011

The court of appeals vacated a district court order and remanded. The court held that the existence of parallel disputes between the parties in state and federal courts did not constitute the “exceptional circumstances” needed to warrant the district court's abstention.

Strange Land, Inc. owned property in Nevada. It obtained an insurance policy from Seneca Insurance Company, Inc. to cover the property for risk of loss. It thereafter filed four claims with Seneca. Seneca paid the first claim, but subsequently discovered alleged material misrepresentations in Strange Land's application for coverage. Seneca filed suit against Strange Land, seeking a declaration rescinding the policy. Seneca also sought to recoup the monies already paid to Strange Land on its first claim. Shortly thereafter, Belfor USA Group, Inc., which repaired the damage to Strange Land's property, filed an action in Nevada state court seeking compensation for its repair work from both Strange Land and Seneca. Seneca moved to dismiss or stay the state action in light of the pending federal action, and Strange Land filed a request for abstention in the federal action.