Case Title: Chartis Excess Limited, et al. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 539, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARTIS EXCESS LIMITED f/k/a 
AIG EXCESS LIABILITY 
INSURANCE INTERNATIONAL 
LIMITED f/k/a STARR EXCESS 
LIABILITY INSURANCE 
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, 
 
Third-Party Defendant Below/ 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL 
CASUALTY CO.,  
 
           Third-Party Plaintiff Below/ 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 539, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 09C-01-170 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: October 31, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 4, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 4th day of November 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The third-party defendant/appellant, Chartis Excess Limited 
(“Chartis”), filed an appeal from the Superior Court’s January 21, 2011 and 
August 12, 2011 orders in this insurance coverage case following the entry 
of the Superior Court’s purportedly “final” order on September 7, 2011.  For 
the reasons that follow, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed for 
 
2
the appellant’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when filing an 
appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, following the filing of 
Chartis’s notice of appeal, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice directing 
Chartis to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed for its failure 
to comply with Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent 
interlocutory order. 
 
(3) 
On October 21, 2011, Chartis filed its response to the notice to 
show cause.  In its response, Chartis states that the Superior Court’s 
September 7, 2011 order did not explicitly state that it was the Superior 
Court’s final judgment in the matter.  Neither was the order entered as a final 
judgment pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b).  Chartis attaches 
copies of correspondence to its response reflecting that the Superior Court’s 
“three most recent rulings” were “intended to put the matter in a procedural 
posture for an appeal.” 
 
(4) 
On October 31, 2011, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. filed 
its reply to Chartis’s response to the notice to show cause.  Lumbermens 
takes the position that all matters in the Superior Court have been resolved 
and, therefore, this appeal should proceed. 
 
3
 
(5) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court’s jurisdiction is 
limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.1  An order is deemed 
to be “final” if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order 
be the “final act” in the case.2  The record before us reflects that the Superior 
Court has not “clearly declared” its intention that its September 7, 2011 
order be its final act in this case.  An appeal to this Court from an apparent 
interlocutory order is premature absent compliance with Rule 42.  In the 
absence of Chartis’s compliance with Rule 42, we conclude that this appeal 
must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 
1973).