Case Title: National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, et al. v. Axiall Corporation, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 393, 2019

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
NATIONAL UNION FIRE 
INSURANCE COMPANY OF 
PITTSBURGH, PA, ALLIANZ 
GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE 
COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN 
INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH 
AMERICAN INSURANCE 
COMPANY, GREAT LAKES 
INSURANCE SE, XL INSURANCE 
AMERICA, INC., GENERAL 
SECURITY INDEMNITY 
COMPANY OF ARIZONA, ASPEN 
INSURANCE UK LIMITED, 
NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT 
COMPANY, INC., IRONSHORE 
SPECIALTY INSURANCE 
COMPANY, VALIDUS 
SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING 
SERVICES, INC., and HDI-
GERLING AMERICA 
INSURANCE COMPANY, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
AXIALL CORPORATION and 
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL 
CORPORATION,  
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  Nos. 393, 2019 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N19C-04-089 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
    Submitted:  September 12, 2019 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  October 1, 2019  
 
2 
 
Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and the documents 
attached thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiffs below-appellants National Union Fire Insurance 
Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, ACE 
American Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Company, Great Lakes 
Insurance SE, XL Insurance America, Inc., General Security Indemnity Company 
of Arizona, Aspen Insurance UK Limited, Navigators Management Company, Inc., 
Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, Validus Specialty Underwriting Services, 
Inc., and HDI-Gerling America Insurance Company (collectively, the “Insurers”)  
have petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order granting the motion to stay for forum non 
conveniens filed by the defendants below-appellees Axiall Corporation and 
Westlake Chemical Corporation (collectively, the “Insureds”).  
(2) 
This appeal arises from an insurance-coverage dispute.  Following the 
release of liquefied and vaporized chlorine from a cracked tank at a plant located in 
West Virginia, the Insureds notified the Insurers of a loss under the policies.  On 
January 18, 2018, the Insurers issued a reservation-of-rights letter to the Insureds.  
On April 8, 2019, the Insurers informed the Insureds that they denied coverage and 
3 
 
that they had initiated declaratory judgment proceedings in the Superior Court.  On 
April 9, 2019, the Insurers filed a declaratory judgment complaint against the 
Insureds in the Superior Court.  On April 10, 2019, the Insureds filed a complaint 
against the Insurers in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia.    
(3) 
In the Delaware litigation, the parties briefed the Insureds’ motion to 
dismiss or stay for forum non conveniens.  On August 1, 2019, the Superior Court 
held a hearing on the motion.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Superior Court 
denied the motion to dismiss, but granted the motion to stay pending the final 
resolution of the West Virginia litigation.  The Superior Court found that the 
Delaware and West Virginia cases were filed contemporaneously and that the Cryo-
Maid factors supported a stay of the Delaware litigation in favor of the West Virginia 
litigation.  The Superior Court also found that the Insureds had not shown that it 
would be an overwhelming hardship to litigate in Delaware, so dismissal of the 
Delaware litigation was not appropriate.  On August 12, 2019, the Superior Court 
entered an order incorporating the August 1, 2019 ruling.     
(4) 
On August 22, 2019, the Insurers filed an application for certification 
of an interlocutory appeal.  Based on this Court’s past interlocutory review of trial 
court rulings resolving forum disputes, the Insurers argued that the Superior Court’s 
decision determined a substantial issue of material importance.  As to the Rule 
42(b)(iii) criteria, the Insurers argued that the Superior Court’s decision conflicted 
4 
 
with other trial court decisions requiring a party seeking a stay to show 
overwhelming hardship when a stay would have the same effect as dismissal.   
(5) 
The Insureds opposed the application for certification.  They argued 
that the Superior Court decision did not determine a substantial issue of material 
importance, the Insurers failed to identify any exceptional circumstances to justify 
interlocutory review of a ruling on a motion to stay, and the stay did not have the 
same effect as dismissal.   
(6) 
On September 11, 2019, the Superior Court denied the application for 
certification.1  The Superior Court found that the Insurers had not identified 
exceptional circumstances supporting interlocutory review,2  and concluded that, 
even if its decision did determine a substantial issue of material importance meriting 
interlocutory review, the decision did not conflict with other trial court decisions on 
the same issue of law.3  The Superior Court also found that certification would not 
promote judicial efficiencies because the West Virginia litigation would proceed 
regardless of the result of an interlocutory appeal, leading to the possibility of two 
parallel actions with duplicate filings and potentially inconsistent rulings.4  The 
Superior Court concluded that the likely benefits of interlocutory review did not 
                                               
 
1 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Axiall Corp., 2019 WL 4303388 (Del. Super. Ct. 
Sept. 11, 2019). 
2 Id. at *4. 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
5 
 
outweigh the probable costs, such that interlocutory review was in the interest of 
justice.5   
(7) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.6  In the exercise of our discretion and giving great weight to 
the Superior Court’s denial of the application for certification, 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,7 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the 
inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.8   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
                                               
 
5 Id. 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
7 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
8 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).