03-24-09 Continental Insurance Company, et al. v. Honeywell
International, Inc., et al., and Honeywell
International, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company, et al.
A-1973-08T1, A-1976-08T1, A-1978-08T1, A-1979-08T1, A-
1981-08T1, A-1982-08T1, A-1983-08T1, A-1984-08T1 and
A-1986-08T1 (consolidated)
The court considered the trial court's application of
comity principles in these two companion cases.
In the first, Continental filed an action in New Jersey
seeking a declaration as to whether certain entities, including
the Resco defendants, were entitled to the benefits of coverage
from policies, extending over a four-year period, that were
issued to other entities. As the case bogged down in personal
jurisdiction disputes for more than three years, Resco commenced
suits in Indiana, Texas and Ohio seeking coverage from
Continental and many other insurers under policies issued over
far greater time periods (ranging from forty-two to fifty years)
than the four years in question in the New Jersey action. When
Continental moved for injunctive relief to bar Resco's
prosecution of the out-of-state cases, the trial judge permitted
Continental's joinder of all the parties and claims asserted in
the out-of-state cases; the trial judge then concluded that
because of the considerable conflict between the New Jersey action, as amended, and the out-of-state suits and, because the
New Jersey action was "first-filed," an injunction was required
to prevent Resco from prosecuting the out-of-state suits. In
reversing the injunction, the court found that Continental's
claim that the New Jersey suit was "first-filed" in these
unusual circumstances was, at best, ambiguous, and that other
special equities, including the slow progress of the New Jersey
action, inured against the issuance of the anti-suit injunction.
In the second case, the trial judge refused to dismiss or
stay Honeywell's action against Travelers that was filed eight
days after a substantially similar New York action was filed by
Travelers against Honeywell. The court held that the New York
action was "first-filed" and that there was insufficient support
for the argument that New Jersey was the "natural" forum for the
dispute or that Travelers had unfairly out-raced Honeywell to
court when the parties had been attempting to negotiate a
settlement for nearly four years and either party could have
filed suit at any time during that lengthy period.
