Joe’s],” and lacks “a factual basis upon which to base a Declaratory Judgment.” Id. at 74. The district court entered the order, allowing Banana Joe’s to withdraw its answer and granting Nautilus a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Banana Joe’s. Bayouth and Hastings appeal. Discussion The Declaratory Judgment Act provides, in relevant part: In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, ... any court of the Cir.1974) (concluding that res judicata did not bar the litigation of coverage issues between the insurer, the “omnibus insured,” and the injured party where the insurer had previously litigated those issues to a default judgment against the “named insured”), and Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. v. Schulte, 302 F.2d 174, 177 (7th Cir.1962) (<HOLDING>). We will not indulge such an assumption for
holding that the insurers declaratory relief action presented a justiciable controversy for the injured parties even though the insured tortfeasor had suffered a default judgment holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured holding that the district court erred in dismissing the injured party from the insureds declaratory relief action based on a default judgment entered against the insured and the insureds tortfeasor son holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for judgment in excess of policy limits holding that insurance company could sue in insureds name following assignment of insureds interest against tortfeasor