Opinion
C.A. No. 05C-07-036MJB.
Submitted: March 16, 2006.
Decided: March 20, 2006.
Upon Plaintiffs' Motion to Enter Arbitration Order as Order of Judgment — GRANTED.
Upon Defendants' Motion to Reopen the Case and to Enlarge the Time for Appeal de novo — DENIED.
Richard A. DiLiberto, Jr., Esquire, Young, Conaway, Stargatt Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE.
Beth H. Christman, Esquire, Casarino, Christman Shalk, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Counsel:
The Court has before it two motions in this automobile collision personal injury case: one by the Plaintiff to enter the arbitration order in this case as a judgment; the other by the Defendant to re-open the case and allow for a trial de novo. The Court heard argument on the matter from both parties on March 16, 2006.
The undisputed facts are as follows: the Defendant is stationed in Iraq; he has insurance coverage for the collision and the claim is for less than the policy limits; this Court, Judge Slights, has previously ruled the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act does not apply under these circumstances and ordered arbitration to go forward; the arbitrator awarded $8,500.00 plus interest and costs to the Plaintiff; the Defendant filed a request for a trial de novo one day after the deadline under Superior Court Civil Rule 16.1; the defense counsel filed the request without consultation with the Defendant, with whom she has never spoken, despite a number of efforts to do so — including through communication with his mother; the reason the matter was filed late was that defense counsel erred in calculating the deadline.
The failure to file this particular appeal is not jurisdictional, and the decision on these motions is within the sound discretion of the Court. The Court has established the provisions for arbitration in Superior Court Civil Rule 16.1 and the relatively short time periods for action by the Court, parties and arbitrator for a reason — to assist in the fair, but prompt resolution of cases. This case is precisely the kind of case arbitration was intended to affect, and the Court should not lightly regard the lack of compliance with the requirements of the Rule.
Whitaker v. Goodwin, 2002 WL 1587857 (Del.Super.Ct.).
This Court has previously held that negligence, without more, is not sufficient to constitute excusable neglect. Given the particular facts of this case, the Court is not going to allow the case to be reopened. There is no reason to believe the Defendant has any interest in pursuing this case beyond the Arbitration. Additionally, the award is not one which is excessive or would alert the Court that an injustice will occur if it is allowed to stand.
Id, citing Falcon Steel Co. Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 366 A.2d 512, 515 (Del.Super.Ct. 1976).
For the reasons stated herein, therefore, the Motion to Reopen the case and Enlarge the Time for Filing an Appeal for Trial De Novo is DENIED, and the Motion to Enter Arbitration Order of Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.