Title: The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Trinidad Navarro, in his official capacity as Delaware Insurance Commissione

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC 
DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW 
YORK,  
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
TRINIDAD NAVARRO, in his 
official capacity as Delaware 
Insurance Commissioner, 
 
Respondent. 
§ 
§  No. 307, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N23M-04-138 
§   
§   
§ 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 3, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental 
notice of interlocutory appeal, and their exhibits, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On April 27, 2023, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New 
York (the “Diocese”) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court 
to compel Trinidad Navarro, in his official capacity as Delaware Insurance 
Commissioner (the “Commissioner”), to initiate liquidation proceedings against 
Arrowhead Indemnity Company (“Arrowhead”).   
 
(2) 
Arrowhead moved to intervene, arguing that it satisfied the 
requirements for either permissive or as-of-right intervention.  On July 27, 2023, the 
2 
 
Superior Court denied Arrowhead’s motion (the “Order”).  In so doing, the court 
noted that while an insurer is in liquidation, the Commissioner is responsible for 
preventing further damage to the insurer and protecting its remaining assets so that 
the potential claims of policyholders and creditors can be paid.  Because Arrowhead 
had failed to point to any facts to support its claim that its interest would not be 
adequately protected by the Commissioner, the Superior Court concluded that 
Arrowhead was not entitled to intervene as of right.1  And the Superior Court 
declined to exercise its discretion to permit Arrowhead to intervene on the basis of 
Arrowhead’s conclusory allegation that it had satisfied the requirements of 
permissive intervention.2  Arrowhead asked the Superior Court to certify an 
interlocutory appeal from the Order.  The Diocese opposed the application. 
 
(3) 
On August 28, 2023, the Superior Court denied Arrowhead’s 
application.3  As an initial matter, the Superior Court disagreed with Arrowhead’s 
position that the Order decided a substantial issue of material importance—a 
threshold consideration under Rule 424—because the denial of Arrowhead’s motion 
 
1 See Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 24(a) (“Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene 
in an action: … (2) when an applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction 
which is the subject matter of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the 
action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, 
unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”). 
2 See Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 24(b) (setting forth the conditions under which the Superior Court 
may permit an applicant to intervene). 
3 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, NY v. Navarro, 2023 WL 5551018 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 
28, 2023). 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(i). 
3 
 
to intervene did not relate to the merits of the case.  The court observed that if it 
accepted Arrowhead’s position, every trial court decision denying a motion to 
intervene would “establish important legal rights.”5  Nevertheless, the Superior 
Court analyzed the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors cited by Arrowhead—specifically, Factors 
A (the Order decided a novel issue of first impression) and H (interlocutory review 
of the Order would serve the considerations of justice)—and concluded that neither 
factor supported the certification of an interlocutory appeal.  First, the Superior Court 
found that Arrowhead’s characterization of the Order as resolving an issue of first 
impression focused on the merits of the underlying mandamus action, not the court’s 
decision to deny Arrowhead’s motion to intervene.  Second, the Superior Court 
reasoned that considerations of justice would not be served by interlocutory review 
because, among other things, Arrowhead’s interest is adequately protected by the 
Commissioner.6  Finally, the Superior Court concluded that certification would not 
promote an efficient resolution of the case.  The Superior Court therefore denied the 
application.  
(4) 
We agree with the Superior Court that interlocutory review is not 
warranted in this case.  Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
 
5 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, NY, 2023 WL 5551018, at *2. 
6 Indeed, Arrowhead claimed in its application for certification that it had moved to intervene for 
the initial purpose of filing a motion to dismiss the Diocese’s petition for failure to state a claim, 
and the Superior Court docket reflects that the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for failure 
to state a claim on July 24, 2023. 
4 
 
sound discretion of the Court.7  Exercising our discretion and giving due weight to 
the Superior Court’s analysis, we have concluded that the application for 
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule 
42(b).  Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the 
Opinion do not exist,8 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not 
outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory 
appeal.9 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
7 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
8 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
9 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).