Title: Illinois National Insurance Co., et al. v. TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE 
COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN 
INSURANCE COMPANY; ARCH 
INSURANCE COMPANY; and 
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 
COMPANY, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
TIAA-CREF INDIVIDUAL & 
INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; 
TIAA-CREF INVESTMENT 
MANAGEMENT, LLC; TEACHERS 
ADVISORS, INC.; TEACHERS 
INSURANCE AND ANNUITY 
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; and 
COLLEGE RETIRMENT EQUITIES, 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 555, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  C.A. No. N14C-05-178 
§  (CCLD) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 17, 2016 
Decided: 
November 29, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 29th day of November 2016, upon consideration of the notice of 
interlocutory appeal and its exhibits, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendants-appellants (collectively, “the Insurers”) are insurance 
companies that issued professional liability insurance policies to the plaintiffs-
 
 
2 
appellees (collectively, “TIAA-CREF”).  The Insurers have petitioned this Court 
under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal from an opinion of 
the Superior Court dated October 20, 2016 (“the Summary Judgment Opinion”).  
Among other things, the Summary Judgment Opinion granted TIAA-CREF’s 
motion for summary judgment, finding that the amount that TIAA-CREF paid to 
settle three class action lawsuits constituted a covered loss under the Insurers’ 
policies and that the Insurers’ coverage obligations were not relieved by any public 
policy.   
(2) 
The Insurers filed an application for certification to take an 
interlocutory appeal of the Summary Judgment Opinion in the Superior Court on 
October 31, 2016.  TIAA-CREF filed its response in opposition on November 10, 
2016.   
(3) 
The Superior Court denied the certification application on November 
16, 2016.  In denying certification, the Superior Court noted that the Summary 
Judgment Opinion decided a substantial issue of material importance and that 
interlocutory review of the Summary Judgment Opinion potentially could 
terminate the litigation.  Nonetheless, the Superior Court denied certification 
because the Summary Judgment Opinion did not meet any of the other criteria for 
certification set forth in Rule 42(b)(iii).  Among other things, the court concluded 
that this case is not exceptional and that interlocutory review would be inefficient 
 
 
3 
and disruptive because trial on the two remaining issues in the case is set to begin 
December 5, 2016.    
(4) 
We agree with the Superior Court’s analysis.  Applications for 
interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court.  In the 
exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for 
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under 
Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice