Title: Century Indemnity Co., et al. v. Viking Pump, Inc., et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CENTURY INDEMNITY CO,, et al,

Defendants Below-
Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

v.
‘VIKING PUMP, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs Below-
Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

§
§ No. 371, 2014

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ ofthe State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ C.A. No. N10C-06-141

§

§ Court Below—Court of Chancery
§ ofthe State of Delaware

§ CA.No. 1465

§ CONSOLIDATED

Submitted: July 29, 2014
Decided: August 15, 2014

Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.

ORDER
This 15 day of August 2014, upon consideration of the notices to

show cause and the responses thereto, as well as Warren Pump’s motion to

dismiss, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Following a jury verdict rendered on November 15, 2012, the

‘Superior Court entered a final judgment on June 9, 2014. On June 16, 2014,
plaintiff, Warren Pumps, LLG, filed # motion under Superior Court Civil
Rules 59(¢) and (¢) seeking to clarify and supplement the Superior Court’s
judgment. On July 9, 2014, the defendants-sppellants filed # notice of
appeal with this Court from the Superior Court’s June 9, 2014 judgment, On
July 10, 2014, the Court issued a notice to the appellants directing them to
show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for their failure to
comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when appealing an interlocutory
judgment.

(2) The appellants responded to the notice to show cause on July
14, 2014, The appellants contend that they filed the notice of appeal out of
an abundance of caution to preserve their appellate rights given the
uncertainty about the finality of a judgment issued in multiple cases in a
single consolidated action.

(3) _ Inits motion to dismiss, Warren Pumps asserts that the Superior
Court's judgment is not final because of its pending Rule 59 motion
Warren Pumps acknowledges that the Superior Court issued a letter dated
July 11, 2014, after the appeal was filed, indicating its intent to deny Warren
Pump's motion. Nonetheless, Warren Pumps asserts, the Superior Court’s
letter is not a formal order denying its Rule 59 motion and does address the
amount of monetary sanctions to be imposed upon certain of the insurer-

defendants. Warren Pumps contends that this appeal must be dismissed for

} Despite its contention thatthe appeal is interlocutory, Warren Pumps and Viking Pumps
both filed notices of cross-appeal in the event the appeal is permitted to proceed. The
‘Court also issued Rules to Show Cause why the cross-appeals should not be dismissed as
interlocutory.

2
the appellants’ failure to file an interlocutory notice of appeal in compliance
with Supreme Court Rule 42.

(@) We agree. The law is clear that a timely-filed motion for
reargument or to amend a judgment tolls the time for taking an appeal from
an otherwise final judgment of the trial court? Consequently, the appeal
premature and must be dismissed. The filing fee for any future appeal from

 

the Superior Court’s final judgment shall be waived.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal and cross-

appeals are hereby DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

 

? Tomasett v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc'y, 672 A.24 61, 64 (Del. 1996).

3