McKnight v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.

Full title: PETER A. McKNIGHT and, JANIS K. McKNIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all…

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Apr 19, 2005

C.A. No. 04C-09-134 SCD (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2005)

Opinion

C.A. No. 04C-09-134 SCD.

April 19, 2005.

ORDER

SUSAN C. DEL PESCO, Judge.

This 19^th day of April, 2005, the plaintiffs having made application pursuant to Rule 42 of the Supreme Court for an order certifying an appeal from the interlocutory order of this Court, dated March 22, 2005, and it appearing that:

1. The decision on cross-motions for summary judgment which gives rise to this application construed the insurance policy at issue in the dispute. That ruling resolved a significant legal issue in that it established the applicable limit of liability for a portion of the claims in the case. As plaintiffs note in the Application for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal, the summary judgment ruling does not resolve all the claims, thus it is interlocutory.

2. No interlocutory appeal is to be certified by the trial court "unless the order of the trial court determines a substantial issue, establishes a legal right" and meets one of the additional criteria established by Rule 42(b). Clearly, the ruling determines a substantial issue in that it defines the amount of money available to cover the losses in question. Plaintiffs argue that the ruling comports with Rule 41(b) which is incorporated by reference in Rule 42(b)(i), in that it decides an "issue of first instance in this State,"¹ and secondly, that a review of the interlocutory order "may terminate the litigation or may otherwise serve considerations of justice."²

1 Delaware Supreme Court Rule 41(b)(i).

2 Delaware Supreme Court Rule 42(b)(v).

3. The ruling of the trial court interprets an insurance policy in accordance with well-established rules of contract interpretation. While it is true that the specific contract language which is the focus of the ruling has not been interpreted in Delaware, the rules are not a matter of first instance. As to the second basis, there are other aspects of this claim which remain pending. Based on the scope of the complaint, including the asserted desire to certify a class and pursue other forms of damages, there is no reasonable expectation that an interlocutory appeal would terminate the litigation.

4. The balance of the submission by plaintiffs is a restatement of their argument in support of their legal position. Given the requirements of an interlocutory appeal, there is no need to address those arguments.

The interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.