Harrison v. United Water of Delaware, Inc. et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CLARENCE HARRISON, Plaintiff BelowAppellant, v. UNITED WATER OF DELAWARE, INC. and MICHAEL E. REEGER, Defendants BelowAppellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 105, 2001 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 98C-06-084 Submitted: July 23, 2001 Decided: August 22, 2001 Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices ORDER This 22nd day of August 2001, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief, the appellees motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the appellant s answer to the motion to affirm and the appellees reply, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiff-appellant, Clarence Harrison, claims error in the Superior Court judge s various pretrial rulings and statutory violations1 in connection with the settlement of his claims prior to trial. Defendants1 18 Del. C. Chap. 23 (Unfair Trade Practices Act). appellees have moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2 We agree and AFFIRM. (2) Harrison s personal injury lawsuit against defendants-appellees United Water of Delaware, Inc. and Michael E. Reeger was scheduled for trial in the Superior Court on February 5, 2001. Just before trial was to begin the parties reached a settlement of the case. After being informed of the settlement, the Superior Court judge engaged in a settlement colloquy with Harrison, who was pro se. During the colloquy, Harrison stated that the terms of the settlement were acceptable to him and acknowledged that he would not be able to undo the settlement in the future. Despite his representations on the record, Harrison subsequently claimed the settlement was unfair and moved for a new trial.3 Defendants-appellees then moved to have the Superior Court enforce the settlement agreement. The Superior Court denied Harrison s motions on the basis of procedural 2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(a) ( A new trial may be granted . . . in an action in which there has been a trial . . . . ). Harrison subsequently also moved to have the case removed to the United States District Court. 2 impropriety4 and granted defendants-appellees motion to enforce the settlement agreement. (3) The transcript of the settlement colloquy clearly reflects that Harrison entered into the settlement freely and voluntarily and intended the settlement to be a full and final disposition of his claims against defendants-appellees. Thus, Harrison has waived any claims he may have had based on the Superior Court s pretrial rulings.5 In addition, the statutory violations claimed by Harrison do not appear to have any relevance to defendants-appellees since there is no evidence they were ever engaged in the business of insurance.6 (4) It is manifest on the face of Harrison s submissions that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 4 The Superior Court ruled that the motions were untimely and improper since the case had been settled prior to trial. 5 Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938) ( A waiver is . . . an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. ) 6 18 Del. C. § 2302(1). 3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), defendants-appellees motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 4
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.
