Title: The Premcor Refining Group v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

The Premcor Refining Group v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.  Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THE PREMCOR REFINING GROUP, INC. and VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION, Plaintiffs BelowAppellants, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Defendant BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 284, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 07C-01-095 Submitted: June 5, 2008 Decided: June 11, 2008 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 11th day of June 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiffs-appellants, The Premcor Refining Group, Inc. and Valero Energy Corporation ( Premcor ), have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from the Superior Court s interlocutory ruling on May 7, 2008, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment and granted the motion for partial summary judgment of defendant-appellee National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh ( National Union ). The Superior Court determined that National Union was required under its insurance contract with Premcor to provide only up to nine million dollars of coverage in connection with two wrongful death actions brought against Premcor and was not required to provide any coverage for punitive damages. (2) On June 4, 2008, the Superior Court refused to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 42 on the grounds that the interlocutory appeal would not resolve all claims, would not be likely to terminate the litigation, and would not involve any legal issue of first impression. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.1 We have examined the Superior Court s May 7, 2008 decision according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that such exceptional circumstances as would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court s decision do not exist in this case. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). 2