IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., §
n/k/a CONTINENTAL §
AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, § No. 17, 2022
a/k/a TECHNIFY MOTORS, a §
Delaware Corporation; TECHNIFY § Court Below—Superior Court
MOTORS, INC.; and TECHNIFY § of the State of Delaware
MOTORS GmbH, a foreign §
corporation, § C.A. No. K19C-12-028
§
Defendants Below, §
Appellants, §
§
v. §
§
JOSIANE SOUZA DA SILVA §
SOARES, individually and as the §
Personal Representative of the Estate §
of ANTONIO PEREIA SOARES, §
deceased, §
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: January 18, 2022
Decided: February 2, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the
supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, and the exhibits, it appears to the Court
that:
(1) Defendants below-Appellants, Continental Motors, Inc.
(“Continental”) and Continental Aerospace Technologies GmbH (“GmbH”),1 have
petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory
appeal from the Superior Court’s opinion and order denying their motion to dismiss.2
(2) This action arises from the crash of an aircraft in Turks and Caicos
Islands (“TCI”) on December 23, 2017.3 The aircraft was built in Kansas.4 The
aircraft engine, which was manufactured and tested by GmbH in Germany, was
installed in the aircraft at Continental’s Alabama facility.5 A Brazilian company
bought the aircraft, and hired a Brazilian pilot to fly the aircraft from Kansas to
Brazil.6 Plaintiff below-Appellee Josiane Souza Da Silva Soares’s husband, a
Brazilian citizen and employee of the Brazilian company, accompanied the pilot on
the flight.7 During the course of the flight, the aircraft had to make ten planned
stopovers to refuel. 8 Shortly after takeoff from a planned refueling stop in TCI, the
aircraft engine failed and lost power.9 A possible cause of the failure was engine
1
According to the notice of interlocutory appeal, GmbH was formerly known as Technify
Motors GmbH – the name listed in the first amended complaint. There was also a third
defendant, Technify Motors (USA), Inc., that merged with Continental in 2018 and was
dissolved.
2
Soares v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 2021 WL 6015701 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2021).
3
Id. at *2.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
2
hose failure and/or detachment.10 Plaintiff’s husband and the pilot died in the
crash.11
(3) Plaintiff filed a products liability action against Defendants on
December 20, 2019.12 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
cause of action arose in TCI under Delaware’s choice-of-law rules and was barred
by TCI’s one-year statute of limitations.13 Plaintiff contended that the cause of
action did not arise in TCI because TCI was a fortuitous location of injury.14
(4) On December 17, 2021, the Superior Court denied the motion to
dismiss. Based on the complaint, the court found that the location of the crash was
fortuitous and that TCI did not have the most significant relationship with the
occurrence and the parties. 15 The court deferred determination of which jurisdiction
had the most significant relationship for a future time when the record was
sufficiently developed.16
(5) On December 27, 2021, Defendants filed a timely application for
certification of an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff opposed the application. On
January 18, 2022, the Superior Court denied the application for certification.17
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id. at *1.
13
Id. at *2-3.
14
Id. at *4.
15
Id. at *5-11.
16
Id. a *11.
17
Soares v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 2022 WL 153239 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan 18, 2022).
3
(6) Finding that the interlocutory opinion determined a main question of
law relating to the merits of the case and assuming that it raised a legal right, the
Superior Court next addressed the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria Defendants relied upon for
certification.18 As to Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) (question of law resolved for the first time
in Delaware), the court found that the opinion applied well-settled legal principles
to the facts of the case.19 The court concluded that the limited scope of the opinion,
which did not include a complete choice-of-law analysis, did not implicate Rule
42(b)(iii)(B) (conflicting trial court decisions on question of law).20 As to Rule
42(b)(iii)(C) (question of law relating to constitutionality, construction, or
application of statute that has not been, and should be, settled by this Court), the
court found that the construction and application of the borrowing statute, 10 Del.
C. § 8121 was well-settled.21 In light of the court’s determination that further
development of the record was necessary to decide which jurisdiction had the most
significant relationship, the court held that Rule 42(b)(iii)(G) (review of the
interlocutory order may terminate the litigation) did not weigh in favor of
certification.22 The Superior Court also concluded that interlocutory review would
not serve considerations of justice (Rule 42(b)(iii)(H)) because a final determination
18
Id. at *2.
19
Id. at *3.
20
Id. at *4.
21
Id.
22
Id.
4
on choice-of-law required discovery that should not be further delayed.23 After
considering these factors, the court held that the probable costs of interlocutory
review did not outweigh the benefits of certification.24
(7) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of the Court.25 In the exercise of its discretion and giving due weight to
the Superior Court’s analysis, this Court has concluded that the application for
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under
Supreme Court Rule 42(b). We agree with the Superior Court that interlocutory
review is not warranted in light of the further development of the record necessary
for determination of choice-of-law in this case. Exceptional circumstances that
would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s interlocutory opinion do
not exist in this case,26 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not
outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory
appeal.27
23
Id. at *5.
24
Id.
25
Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
26
Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii).
27
Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is
REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
6