Case Title: Lexington Insurance Co. v. Almah LLC, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 319, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEXINGTON INSURANCE 
§ 
COMPANY, 
§ 
No. 319, 2016 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendant Below- 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court  
 
Appellant, 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
§ 
 
v. 
§ 
 
 
§ 
ALMAH LLC and SL GREEN 
§  
REALTY CORPORATION, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
§ 
 
 
Appellees. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
  
Submitted: June 21, 2016  
Decided: 
June 28, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of June 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
We have before us an application for interlocutory review of a 
Superior Court decision addressing cross-motions for summary judgment in an 
insurance coverage dispute turning on issues of contract interpretation.  The 
appellant’s request is based on the Superior Court’s January 27, 2016 
memorandum opinion and May 24, 2016 order denying the appellant’s motion for 
reconsideration.1
                                          
 
1 Almah LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2016 WL 369576 (Del. Super. Jan. 27, 2016), reargument 
denied, 2016 WL 3092687 (Del. Super. May 24, 2016). 
 
(2) 
Under Supreme Court Rule 42, applications for interlocutory review 
are addressed to this Court’s sound discretion.  In determining whether to accept 
the interlocutory appeal, this Court may consider all relevant factors, including the 
trial court’s decision of whether to certify the appeal. 
 
(3) 
In a detailed order dated June 20, 2016, the Superior Court carefully 
considered the relevant factors in Rule 42(b) and explained why interlocutory 
review was not warranted.  We give considerable weight to a trial judge’s 
thoughtful consideration of the Rule 42(b) factors.  For the reasons stated in the 
Superior Court’s well-reasoned order, the Court determines in its discretion that 
the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of 
Rule 42(b) and should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice