Steadfast Insurance Company v. DBI Services, LLC, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Below– Appellant, v. DBI SERVICES, LLC, Defendant Below– Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 322, 2019 Court Below – Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No. N18C-03-291 Submitted: July 25, 2019 Decided: July 31, 2019 Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental notice of appeal, and the documents attached thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiff below, Steadfast Insurance Co. (“Steadfast”), has petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal from a June 24, 2019 Superior Court order. The Superior Court’s decision granted the partial motion for summary judgment filed by DBI Services, LLC (“DBI Services”), and denied the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Steadfast. On July 3, 2019, Steadfast filed an application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court. DBI Services opposed the application. The Superior Court refused the application in a detailed order dated July 25, 2019, explaining why interlocutory review of its decision, which involved issues of contract interpretation, was not warranted under the principles and criteria of Supreme Court Rule 42(b). (2) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the Court.1 In the exercise of its discretion and giving great weight to the trial court’s review, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b). Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s decision do not exist in this case,2 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 2 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.
