Opinion
No. 97C-07-175-WTQ.
Submitted: April 18, 2000.
Decided: April 24, 2000.
Letter Opinion and Order on Defendant's Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal — CERTIFICATION REFUSED
Michael J. Hood, Esquire Tigani Hood, 1801 Mellon Bank Center, P.O. Box 1471, Wilmington, DE. 19899.
Daniel L. McKenty, Esquire McCullough McKenty Kafader 824 Market Street, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 397, Wilmington, DE. 19899.
Paul J. Kania, Esquire, 1201 King Street, Wilmington, DE. 19801.
Gentlemen:
This application for an interlocutory appeal does present a clean isolated issue of law which could be dispositive if the decision of the Trial Court were to be reversed. Given my track record of refusals in interlocutory certifications, candor requires me to say that this one is debatable. I interpret Supreme Court Rule 42(b) as a threshold and view a Supreme Court's decision on acceptance of interlocutory appeals as ultimately governed by Supreme Court Rule 42(d)(v), i.e., "in its discretion."
It seems to me the decision to accept the interlocutory appeal in this case depends on two things: primarily on where one puts the case on the spectrum as to reasonable probability of success on appeal; and secondly, on the importantance of the legal issue for precedential purposes. Since intent in contract law is commonly interpreted to mean manifested intent, I feel, as I found in the March 29, 2000 Opinion, that the language of the contract is not ambiguous and State Farm loses. Thus, I note the probability of success as poor, not unexpected I suppose from the Trial Judge. I also think the case is somewhat of an odd-ball on its essentially undisputed facts and therefore of limited value as a precedent. Moreover, the policy language can be rewritten and perhaps should be. Finally, the case is old and we at the trial level have done a rather poor job of moving the case. The most important thing about this case is to end it and relieve the litigants, who do have something at stake, of its burden. Cases have a lot of ways of ending. My gut tells me this case will end more quickly if there is no interlocutory appeal. So, even granting by stretch that the order may have determined a substantial issue at least in this case, an issue if determined the other way would be dispositive, and even though the order establishes a legal right, I do not find an interlocutory appeal has any reasonable likelihood of success nor do I find an appeal would serve the interests of justice because any substantial nature of the issue has no broad application.
The certification of the Court's Order of March 29, 2000 is hereby REFUSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely, ____________________ William T. Quillen
WTQ/caj oc: Prothonotary