Title: Intel Corporation v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
INTEL CORPORATION,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
AMERICAN GUARANTEE & 
LIABILITY INSURANCE 
COMPANY, LUMBERMENS 
MUTUAL CASUALTY 
COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL 
INSURANCE COMPANY and 
MARKEL AMERICAN 
INSURANCE COMPANY,  
 
          Plaintiff and Defendants  
          Below-Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 536, 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 defendant-appellant, Intel Corporation, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s July 29, 2010 order 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 this appeal 
 
2
must be dismissed for 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 Intel’s 
notice of appeal, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice directing Intel 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.  
On October 21, 2011, Intel filed its response to the notice to show cause.   
 
(3) 
In its response, Intel 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).  Intel further states that it is 
“uncertain” whether the Superior Court’s order constitutes a final judgment.  
Finally, Intel notes that its motion for stay pending resolution of litigation in 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending before the Superior 
Court. 
 
(4) 
On October 31, 2011, appellees American Guarantee, 
Lumbermens and Markel filed their replies to Intel’s response to the notice 
to show cause.1  All three appellees take the position that the Superior 
Court’s September 7, 2011 order resolved all issues before the Superior 
                                                 
1 Appellee Liberty Mutual did not file a reply. 
 
3
Court and that, therefore, the appeal should proceed.  However, American 
Guarantee confirms that Intel’s motion for stay pending resolution of 
litigation in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending before the 
Superior Court. 
 
(5) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court’s jurisdiction is 
limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.2  An order is deemed 
to be “final” if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order 
be the court’s “final act” in the case.3  An appeal to this Court from an 
apparent interlocutory order is premature absent compliance with Rule 42.   
 
(6) 
Intel concedes that the Superior Court has not clearly declared 
its intention that its September 7, 2011 order is its final act in this case.  
Moreover, Intel’s motion for stay---a motion that is, at the very least, 
relevant to the instant appeal---remains pending before the Superior Court.4  
Therefore, in the absence of compliance with Rule 42, we conclude that this 
appeal must be dismissed. 
 
                                                 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 
1973). 
4 Intel has filed a motion requesting the same relief in this Court. 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
  
                                                 
5 Intel’s motions to stay and to amend its notice of appeal, currently pending in this 
Court, are hereby denied as moot.