The Eleventh Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the insurer’s appeal of a motion to dismiss its declaratory relief action seeking a ruling it had no duty to defend. Northfield Ins. Co. v. North Brook Industries, Inc., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14776 (11th Cir. May 22, 2026).

North Brook Industries, Inc. owned and operated a hotel. In December 2020, J.G. sued North Brook for injuries she sustained while being sex trafficked by third parties at the hotel. Northfield insured North Brook under a commercial insurance policy.

Northfield brought a declaratory relief action against North Brook claiming it did not owe coverage for J.G.’s underlying lawsuit. Northfield relied upon two endorsements in the policy to find there was no coverage. First, an abuse or molestation endorsement applied. Second, the policy included an assault or battery endorsement denying coverage where the insured knowingly allowed the incident to happen.

The district court partially granted North Brook’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b) (6). The court found that J.G.’s allegations fell within the scope of coverage and that the endorsements did not unambiguously bar or limit coverage. Therefore, Northfield had a duty to defend. Further, Northfield’s suit for a declaration on its duty to indemnify was not ripe but could ripen in the future. The court retained jurisdiction of the action as related to Northfield’s duty to indemnify.

Northfield appealed the district court’s order to the extent the order dismissed its request for a declaration that it owed no duty to defend, asserting that the order constituted an injunction and was thus immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292 (a) (1).

The Eleventh Circuit rejected Northfield’s argument. Although the district court found that Northfield had a duty to defend, this was simply its reason for finding that Northfield’s complaint for a declaration to the contrary failed to state a claim. The district court’s order was not an in personam order requiring Northfield’s performance, and did not award the insured substantive relief. The order met none of the requirements for having the practical effect of an injunction. It, therefore, was not subject to immediate appeal.

Northfield had other options. It could move the district court to enter final judgment on its duty to defend under Rule 54 (b), arguing that there was no just reason for delay. Or it could move for leave to amend its complaint for a declaratory judgment under Rule 15 (a) (2), to remove the still-pending request for a declaration on its duty to indemnify, and then as for final judgment.