Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure — declaratory judgments — justiciability — ripeness — subject matter jurisdiction

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 29, 2014//

Civil Procedure — declaratory judgments — justiciability — ripeness — subject matter jurisdiction

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 29, 2014//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Civil Procedure — declaratory judgments — justiciability — ripeness — subject matter jurisdiction

Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway appeals an order of the circuit court dismissing its declaratory judgment action on the ground that the action was not ripe. The parties to this action are Soo Line and its liability insurers (collectively, the “insurers”). The Environmental Protection Agency gave Soo Line notice in the form of a letter informing Soo Line that it was potentially responsible for the cleanup of a lakeshore site in Ashland. Soo Line filed a declaratory judgment action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (Act), Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (2011-12), seeking a determination of its right to coverage under various insurance policies for all costs to Soo Line that might arise from the cleanup. Earlier on the same day that Soo Line filed the lawsuit in the circuit court, Soo Line placed in the mail notices of claim and tenders of defense (collectively referred to as “notices of claim” or “the notices”) to its insurers.

We address three issues in this appeal. First, when is justiciability to be determined in an action brought under the Act; second, was Soo Line’s declaratory judgment action ripe for judicial determination and thus justiciable; and, third, did the circuit court lack competency to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction because this action was not ripe for judicial determination.

We conclude that justiciability is determined at the time of the filing of the summons and complaint in the circuit court; that under the facts of this case, this action was not ripe when Soo Line filed it; and that the circuit court did not have competency to exercise its jurisdiction over this action because the action was not ripe at the time of filing. We therefore affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP1422 Soo Line Railroad Company v. Admimarl Insurance Co., et al.

Dist III, Ashland County, Eaton, J., Higginbotham, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Fauerbach, Michael F., Ashland; Thavis, Robert P., Minneapolis; Davis, Andrew W., Minneapolis; For Respondent: Dykeman, Stephanie L., Brookfield; Anich, Matthew Ashland; F., Dunne, Roderick T., Chicago; O’Brien, Michael F., Eau Claire; Strong, Daneille M., Eau Claire; Jensen, Thomas D., Minneapolis; McAndrews, John G., New York; Anderson, Matthew B., New York

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests