IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE §
COMPANY, §
§ No. 273, 2018
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON §
PAIN & REHABILITATION CENTER, § C.A. No. N17C-03-242
and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, §
P.A., on behalf of herself and all others §
similarly situated, §
§
Plaintiffs Below- §
Appellees. §
Submitted: May 24, 2018
Decided: June 5, 2018
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears that:
(1) The defendant below, GEICO General Insurance Company
(“GEICO”), has petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an
interlocutory appeal from a memorandum opinion of the Superior Court dated April
24, 2018 (“the Memorandum Opinion”). The Memorandum Opinion granted in part
and denied in part GEICO’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. Among
other things, the Memorandum Opinion dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that GEICO
had violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act but allowed the plaintiffs’ claims for
breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, and declaratory judgment to proceed.
(2) On May 4, 2018, GEICO filed an application for certification in the
Superior Court to take an interlocutory appeal of one aspect of the Memorandum
Opinion, namely the Superior Court’s denial of GEICO’s motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory judgment. GEICO argued in its application that,
under this Court’s decision in Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,1 any review
of the rules that GEICO uses in adjusting insurance claims must be decided by the
Delaware Insurance Commissioner rather than by a court.
(3) GEICO argued to the Superior Court that its application for certification
of an interlocutory appeal met the criteria of Rule 42 because the Memorandum
Opinion decided a substantial issue of material importance, resolved a question of
first impression, conflicted with Delaware Supreme Court precedent, and addressed
the proper application of a Delaware statute. GEICO also argued that interlocutory
review may terminate “part” of the litigation and otherwise serve considerations of
justice. The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition on May 14, 2018.
(4) The Superior Court denied the certification application on May 24,
2018. In denying certification, the Superior Court concluded that the Memorandum
Opinion did not resolve a question of first impression, did not conflict with any trial
1
131 A.3d 806 (Del. 2016).
2
court decision or controlling precedent, and did not relate to the proper application
of a Delaware statute that has not been, but should be, settled by the Delaware
Supreme Court in advance of a final order. Moreover, the Superior Court concluded
that certification was not warranted because an interlocutory appeal would not
terminate the litigation or otherwise serve considerations of justice.
(5) We agree that interlocutory review is not warranted in this case.
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this
Court. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application
for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under
Supreme Court Rule 42(b). The case is not exceptional,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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Justice
2
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii)
3
Id. 42(b)(iii).
3