Eleventh Circuit Declines Review of Insurer’s Duty to Defend TVPRA Sex Trafficking Claims on Jurisdictional Grounds

In Northfield Insurance Co. v. North Brook Industries Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sua sponte held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine if the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) sex trafficking claims.  

Northfield Insurance Co. issued a commercial insurance policy to North Brook Industries Inc., which operated the United Inn and Suites in Decatur, Georgia. Under the policy, Northfield was required to pay sums that it becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury and property damage to which the policy applied (under Coverage A) or because of personal and advertising injury to which the policy applied (under Coverage B). Under both Coverage A and Coverage B, Northfield owed a duty to defend North Brook against any suit seeking those damages.

Northfield’s duties under Coverages A and B were modified, in relevant part, by two endorsements: (1) the abuse or molestation endorsement, under which Northfield owed no coverage for bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury “arising out of any act of ‘abuse or molestation’ committed by any person, including any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such ‘abuse or molestation’”; and (2) the assault or battery endorsement, under which Northfield’s coverage duties for assault or battery offenses were limited to $25,000 for each individual offense and $50,000 for the aggregate of all offenses and which excludes coverage for various injuries, including injuries “arising out of an ‘assault or battery offense’ committed at the direction of the insured or that the insured knowingly allowed to happen.”

In December 2020, a minor victim of sex trafficking, identified as J.G., sued North Brook under the TVPRA and Georgia common law, alleging that she was sex trafficked by third parties at the hotel between 2018 and 2019. Northfield defended North Brook subject to a reservation of rights, and on July 11, 2025, a jury awarded a $40 million verdict in favor of J.G. In August 2025, the insured filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, which remains pending before the trial court.

In August 2023, insurer Northfield filed a declaratory action seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Northbrook in the underlying lawsuit brought by J.G. Northfield sought the declaration based on the following three arguments: (1) J.G.’s claims did not constitute personal and advertising injury and were not covered by Coverage B; (2) J.G.’s claims were subject to the abuse or molestation endorsement, barring coverage under Coverages A and B; and (3) J.G.’s claims were subject to the assault or battery endorsement, barring or limiting coverage under Coverages A and B.

In its motion to dismiss, North Brook argued that Northfield’s duty to indemnify arguments were not ripe until a determination as to North Brook’s liability is made in the underlying action. North Brook further argued that the underlying allegations sufficiently triggered Coverage B and concerned conduct that fell outside both endorsements.

In reviewing North Brook’s motion, the federal district court partially granted dismissal as to Northfield’s duty to defend but retained jurisdiction as related to the duty to indemnify. The court determined that Northfield had a duty to defend because the allegations of bodily injuries from false imprisonment and physical deterioration fell within the scope of Coverages A and B and could exist independent of sexual abuse, rendering the endorsements inapplicable. However, on the duty to indemnify, the district court noted that although North Brook could ultimately be found liable in the underlying action, no such determination had been made, and thus Northfield’s suit for a declaration on its duty to indemnify was premature. Northfield subsequently appealed as to the district court’s dismissal of its request for a declaration on no duty to defend.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the action, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review the district court's duty-to-defend decision. While the court’s jurisdiction over appeals of certain nonfinal orders extends to both injunctive orders and orders that have the practical effect of granting injunctions, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the district court’s order was neither an injunctive order nor had the practical effect of an injunction as required for immediate appeal. To have the injunctive effect necessary for appeal, the order must (1) be a clear and understandable directive from the district court; (2) be enforceable through contempt proceedings; and (3) give some or all of the substantive relief sought. Here, the order did not require Northfield’s performance, was not enforceable by the court’s contempt power, and did not award the insured substantive relief. Absent a final judgment or interlocutory order akin to an injunction, the Eleventh Circuit held that Northfield’s appeal was outside the purview of its review.

Importantly, the Eleventh Circuit flagged other recourses available to Northfield, including moving the district court to enter final judgment on its duty to defend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) by arguing that there is no just reason for delay. In such scenario, Northfield could subsequently appeal the ruling on its duty to defend, under which the Eleventh Circuit found it would then have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.