IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHEMTURA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
v.. ) C.A. N0. N14C-12-2l0 MMJ CCLD
)
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT )
LLOYD’S, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Submitted: July 13, 2016
Decided: July 20, 2016
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL
_F_ROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
David J. Baldwin, Esq., Michael B. Rush, Esq., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP,
Helen K. Michael, Esq., Erica J. Dominitz, Esq., Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff Chemtura Corporation
John S. Spadaro, Esq., John Sheehan Spadaro, LLC, Stephen T. Roberts, Esq.,
Th0mas J. Quinn, Esq., Alexander Mueller, Esq., Mendes & Mount, LLP,
Attorneys for Defendants Certain Underwriters at L10yd’s London and Various
London Market Insurance Companies
JOHNSTON, J.
Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Policy
Numbers K.1l555, et al. applied under Rule 42 of the Supreme Court for an Order
certifying an appeal from two interlocutory rulings of this Court. The Opinion
dated April 27, 2016 granted Plaintiff’ s Motion to Determine Applicable Law
Regarding Allocation, and denied Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Choice of Law
Determination. The June 20, 2016 Order denied Defendants’ Motion for
Reargument. The Court finds that these holdings decide a substantial issue of
material importance that merits appellate review before a final judgment.
l. The determination of whether to certify an interlocutory appeal lies
within the discretion of the Court and is analyzed under the criteria set forth in
Supreme Court Rule 42(b). When deciding whether to certify an interlocutory
appeal, the Court must consider: (1) the eight factors listed in Delaware Supreme
Court Rule 42(b)(iii); (2) the most efficient and just schedule to resolve the case;
and (3) whether and why the likely benefits of interlocutory review outweigh the
probable costs, such that interlocutory review is in the interests of justice. If the
balance of these considerations is uncertain, the trial court should refuse to certify
the interlocutory appeal.
2. By Opinion dated April 27, 20l6, this Court heldi
There are two locations at issue in this case: Arl)(111)(/>,).
alone.6 The interlocutory rulings do not construe a statute.7 Jurisdiction is not
disputed.$ No prior decision or judgment has been reversed.g
12. However, the Court finds that interlocutory review may terminate the
litigation or otherwise serve considerations of justice.m The choice of law
determination is central in this case because it determines the scope of Defendants’
insurance coverage obligations. Because this issue is essentially case dispositive,
interlocutory review may terminate the litigation. The parties agree that
interlocutory review will promote judicial efficiency by furthering settlement
discussions in a more timely manner.
13. The Court finds that interlocutory review will be the most efficient
and just way to proceed with the instant case. The benefits of appellate review_
termination of the case and/or fostering settlement discussions_outweigh the
probable costs, such that interlocutory review is in the interests of justice.
IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s April 27, 2016 Opinion and June 20,
2016 Order are hereby certified to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware for
disposition in accordance with Rule 42 of that Court.
ary M. Johnston\
6 D@i. supr. ct R. 42@>)(111)(13).
7 Del. supr. cr. R. 4z(b)(iii)(c).
8 D@i. supr. cr. R. 42@)@11)(13).
9 D@i. supr. cr. R. 42(1»)(111)(1~:)_(11).
1° D@l. supr. cr. R. 42(1;>)(111)(0)_(11)_