AT & T Wireless Services, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Below, Appellant, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Below, Appellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 54, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 03C-12-232 Submitted: July 23, 2008 Decided: August 12, 2008 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 12th day of August, 2008, on consideration of the parties briefs and arguments, it appears to the Court that: 1. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. ( AWS ) appeals the Superior Court s decisions granting motions to dismiss brought by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company. AWS argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in its analysis of: (1) whether AWS suffered a Loss within the meaning of the applicable insurance policies; and (2) whether an exclusion for Claims arising out of the service of AWS directors or officers for another entity precludes coverage. 2. After the trial court granted the motions to dismiss, this Court addressed both of those questions, in AT&T v. Clarendon, 931 A.2d 409 (Del. 2007) and AT&T v. Faraday Capital Ltd., 918 A.2d 1104 (Del. 2007). Before briefing on this appeal began, the Insurers moved to remand to allow the trial court to consider the Clarendon decision. AWS opposed the motion, and this Court denied it. 3. Having heard and considered the parties briefs and arguments, we now conclude that the trial court should reconsider the two issues identified above in light of the Clarendon and Faraday decisions. Accordingly, we are remanding this matter to the Superior Court. This Court is not retaining jurisdiction. The trial court may proceed on remand as it deems appropriate, without limitation on its reconsideration of any other issues or its conduct of this litigation in any respect. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be, and the same hereby is, REMANDED for further action in accordance with this ORDER. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 2
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.
