Washington Insurance v. Plum Creek Timber Co., et al.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WASHINGTON INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Third-Party Defendant BelowAppellant, v. PLUM CREEK TIMBER COMPANY, L.P., PLUM CREEK TIMBERLANDS, L.P., PLUM CREEK MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., PCMC INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, L.P., P.C. ADVISORY CORP. I, P.C. ADVISORY PARTNERS, I, L.P., and PLUM CREEK TIMBER COMPANY, INC., Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Third Party Plaintiffs BelowAppellees, and RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 279, 2004 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 99C-11-263 Submitted: July 1, 2004 Decided: July 19, 2004 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 19th day of July 2004, it appears to the Court that: (1) Third-party defendant, Washington Insurance Guaranty Association (WIGA), has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from interlocutory orders of the Superior Court dated April 15, 2004 and June 10, 2004. Among other things, the Superior Court s April 15 order granted partial summary judgment to the defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs. The June 10 order denied WIGA s motion for reargument. (2) On June 30, 2004, the Superior Court denied WIGA s application to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases. (4) In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief 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.