Johnson Controls Inc. v. Barkley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., KEMPER INSURANCE GROUP, INC.,andAMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE CO., Defendants BelowAppellants, v. ROBERT D. BARKLEY, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 421, 2005 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County C.A. No. 04C-10-024 Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: October 18, 2005 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 18th day of October 2005, upon consideration of the appellee s motion to dismiss and the appellants response thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) In October 2004, plaintiff-appellee, Robert D. Barkley, filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking damages from defendantsappellants, Johnson Controls, Inc., and its workers compensation insurance carriers, Kemper Insurance Group and American Motorists Insurance Co., for failure to timely pay workers compensation benefits. The parties subsequently filed cross motions for summary judgment in the Superior Court. The motions dealt solely with the issue of liability. (2) On August 18, 2005, the Superior Court issued its decision, which granted Barkley s motion for summary judgment and denied the appellants motion. In its decision, the Superior Court stated that an inquisition hearing on damages would be scheduled if the parties were not able to agree on the amount of damages owed. (3) Under Delaware law, an order is deemed final and appealable if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court s final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.1 In a suit for money damages, settlement of the amount due is a condition precedent to the finality of a judgment. 2 Thus, an appeal from a determination of liability only, where damages have not been fixed, constitutes an impermissible interlocutory appeal if the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 42, which governs interlocutory appeals, have not been observed.3 In this case, the appellant has not observed the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42. J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). 2 Id. 3 Id. 1 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
