Case Title: Commerce & Industry Insurance Co. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 450, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 
INSURANCE COMPANY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY 
AMERICAS, TAUNUS 
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK 
TRUST CORPORATION, DB PRIVATE 
CLIENTS CORPORATION and DBAB 
WALL STREET LLC, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees, 
 
and 
 
ROYAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE 
COMPANY and LANDMARK 
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§
 
§
 
§
  No. 450, 2012 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
  Court Below
—
Superior Court 
§
  of the State of Delaware, 
§
  in and for New Castle County 
§
  C.A. No. 06C-09-261 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
§
 
 
Submitted:  August 22, 2012 
Decided:  August 24, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 24th day of August 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
 
-2-
 
1) Landmark American Insurance Company (Landmark) and Commerce 
Industry Insurance Company (C&I), defendants below, petitioned this Court, 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory 
order of the Superior Court dated July 12, 2012. 
 
2)  The Superior Court granted the certification application on August 14, 
2012. 
 
3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court.   
 
4) It appears that the Superior Court opinion addresses motions for summary 
judgment and motions for partial summary judgment filed in the summer of 2009.  
The trial court
’s opinion decides issues such as trigger dates, allocation of costs of 
defense, and primary coverage obligations.   
 
5) Landmark
’s application for certification states that it seeks review of three 
issues.  Two issues are matters that Landmark contends the trial court failed to 
address.  The third issue is the trial court
’s determination of a duty to defend one of 
three categories of employees. 
 
6) C&I
’s application for certification states that it seeks review of at least 
seven issues, such as, whether: the plaintiffs below waived coverage claims “for 
most of the subject underlying actions based upon . . . failure to provide timely 
 
 
-3-
notice;
” the trial court erred in deciding that 
“the matter was ripe for allocation of the 
costs of defense;
” and the parties
’ stipulation made the plaintiffs below unconditional 
additional insureds for all claims under certain policies. 
 
7) This case has been pending in the trial court for more than five years.  
Based on the two applications for certification, this Court is not satisfied that 
interlocutory review is likely to 
“terminate the litigation, substantially reduce further 
litigation, or otherwise serve considerations of justice . . . .
”
1  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeals be DENIED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1Supr. Ct  R. 42 (b)(iii).