Title: The Lima Delta Company, et al. v. Global Aerospace, Inc., et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THE LIMA DELTA COMPANY, 
TRIDENT AVIATION SERVICES, 
LLC, and SOCIÉTÉ 
COMMERCIALE ET 
INDUSTRIELLE KATANGAISE,  
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC., as 
underwriter on behalf of certain 
domestic insurance companies, 
NATIONAL INDEMNITY 
COMPANY, AMERICAN 
ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE 
CORPORATION, TOKIO MARINE 
& NICHIDO FIRE INSURANCE 
COMPANY, LTD. (USB), MITSUI 
SUMITOMO INSURANCE 
COMPANY OF AMERICA, 
AMERICAN COMMERCE 
INSURANCE COMPANY, WELLS 
FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES, 
USA, INC., 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§ 
§  No. 114, 2016 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court of 
§  the State of Delaware, 
§   
§  C.A. No. N14C-02-101  
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  March 28, 2016 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:   April 5, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
This 5th day of April 2016, having considered the notice of appeal from an 
interlocutory order and the supplemental notice of appeal from an interlocutory 
order, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiffs below-appellants, The Lima Delta Company, Trident 
Aviation Services, LLC and Société Commerciale et Industrielle Katangaise 
(collectively, “Lima Delta”), filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s 
February 19, 2016 opinion (“Opinion”) granting the motion to dismiss of the 
defendants-below appellees Global Aerospace, Inc. (“Global”), National Indemnity 
Company, American Alternative Insurance Corporation, Tokio Marine & Nichido 
Fire Insurance Company, Ltd. (USB), Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of 
America, and American Commerce Insurance Company (collectively with Global, 
“the Insurers”) and the motion to stay of defendant-below appellee Wells Fargo 
Insurance Services, USA, Inc. (“Wells Fargo”).1  In the Opinion, the Superior 
Court concluded that Lima Delta’s claims against the Insurers should be dismissed 
in favor of litigation Global filed against The Lima Delta Company and Trident 
Aviation Services, LLC in Georgia twenty-one months before Lima Delta 
instituted the Delaware litigation.2  The Superior Court concluded that a stay of 
Lima Delta’s claims against Wells Fargo was appropriate because even though 
                                                 
1 Lima Delta Co. v. Global Aerospace, Inc., 2016 WL 691965 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 19, 2016). 
2 Id. at *3-6. 
3 
 
Wells Fargo was not a party to the Georgia litigation, resolution of the insurance 
coverage dispute in Georgia would likely impact Lima Delta’s claims against 
Wells Fargo in Delaware.3   
(2) 
Although the Opinion was interlocutory and Lima Delta filed a 
motion for certification of final judgment, or in the alternative, interlocutory 
review of the Opinion as to the Insurers and interlocutory review of the Opinion as 
to Wells Fargo in the Superior Court on February 29, 2016, the notice of appeal 
filed in this Court did not comply with Official Form M as required by Supreme 
Court Rule 42(d)(ii)4 and did not include the application for certification of an 
interlocutory appeal as required by Supreme Court Rule 42(d)(iv)(A).5  The 
Insurers filed their opposition to Lima Delta’s motion on March 9, 2016.  Wells 
Fargo filed its opposition to Lima Delta’s motion on March 10, 2016. 
(3) 
On March 17, 2016, Lima Delta filed an amended application for 
certification of an interlocutory appeal with the certification of counsel required by 
Rule 42(b)(iii).  A few hours later, the Superior Court denied Lima Delta’s 
application for certification of an interlocutory appeal.  As to the granting of the 
Insurers’ motion to dismiss, the Superior Court concluded that none of the Rule 
                                                 
3 Id. at *7-8. 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(ii) (providing that notice of appeal shall comply with Rule 42 and Official 
Form M which is titled “Notice of Appeal from Interlocutory Order” and includes the date the 
application for certification was filed in the Superior Court). 
5 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(iv)(A) (requiring notice of interlocutory appeal to include application for 
certification). 
4 
 
42(b)(iii) criteria weighed in favor of certification, certification would not promote 
the most efficient and just schedule to resolve the case, and the benefits of 
interlocutory review would not outweigh the probable costs in light of the 
advanced stage of the Georgia litigation.   
(4) 
As to the granting of the motion to stay, the Superior Court concluded 
that the case did not implicate the same interests that led to interlocutory review in 
McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Eng’g Co.6 and Gen’l Foods 
Corp. v. Cryo-Maid, Inc.7 as Lima Delta claimed because, unlike those cases, there 
was no litigation against Wells Fargo pending in another forum and the merits of 
Lima Delta’s case against Wells Fargo would ultimately proceed in Delaware.  The 
Superior Court further found that none of the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria weighed in 
favor of certification, certification would not promote the most efficient and just 
schedule to resolve the case, and the benefits of interlocutory review would not 
outweigh the probable costs.      
(5) 
In a separate order, also dated March 17, 2016, the Superior Court 
denied Lima Delta’s motion for certification of final judgment.  In a letter dated 
March 22, 2016, the Superior Court acknowledged Lima Delta’s amended 
application for certification of an interlocutory appeal, which contained the 
                                                 
6 263 A.2d 281, 283-84 (Del. 1970) (reversing Superior Court’s denial of stay where there was 
case involving same parties and same issues in Alabama). 
7 198 A.2d 681, 684-85 (Del. 1964) (affirming Superior Court’s denial of stay where there was 
case involving same parties and issues in Illinois), overruled in part by Pepsico, Inc. v. Pepsi-
Cola Bottling Co. of Asbury Park, (Del. 1969). 
5 
 
certification of counsel required by Rule 42(b)(iii).  The Superior Court concluded 
that the amended application was moot because it had denied the original 
application on the merits.  On March 28, 2016, Lima Delta filed a supplemental 
notice of interlocutory appeal in this Court.  The notice did not attach the responses 
or the Superior Court’s denial of the application for certification as required by 
Rule 42(d)(iv)(C) and (D).       
(6) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.  Even assuming the notice of interlocutory appeal and 
supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal had been filed in accordance with Rule 
42(d), the Court agrees with the Superior Court’s March 17, 2016 order denying 
the application for certification.  The Rule 42(b) principles and criteria do not 
weigh in favor of interlocutory review of the Opinion.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           Justice