action will be decided in pending actions, it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment.” Id. (citing Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509, 512 n. 1, 290 A.2d 530 (1972)). Further, the Court determined that it would be inherently unfair to permit Transamerica to monopolize not only its litigation with Brohawn, but also the litigation between Brohawn and the plaintiff in the underlying tort litigation because of the preclusive effect the declaration may have on the pending litigation. Id. at 407, 347 A.2d 842. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed our decision and held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by declining to render a declaratory judgment. Id. We recognize that Brohawn 426); Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y, 250 Neb. 345, 549 N.W.2d 172, 176 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Simmons v. Superior Court in and for L.A.
holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory 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 trial judge is legally correct in dismissing declaratory action when two actions are substantially the same issues were identical and the identical action was still pending holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding that entertaining a declaratory judgment action was an abuse of discretion when the same issue was pending in an action in west virginia