IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY )

OF CANADA, )

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) 

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, )

FSB, Solely as Securities Intermediary, )

Defendant. )

_____________________________________ ) C.A. No. N18C-08-074

) PRW CCLD

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, )

FSB, Solely as Securities Intermediary, )

Counterclaim-Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY )

OF CANADA, )

 Counterclaim-Defendant. )

Submitted: March 31, 2021

Decided: April 12, 2021

ORDER LIFTING STAY, ENTERING DIMISSAL,

AND VACATING PREVIOUS ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION

This 12th day of April, 2021, upon consideration of the parties’ Joint Motion 

to Lift Stay and Enter Notice of Dismissal (D.I. 138), the arguments thereon and 

supplements thereto (D.I. 143 and 144), the Delaware Supreme Court’s Order 
-2-

entered in In re Appeal of Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada,

1

and the record in 

this matter, it appears to the Court that:

(1) This contract action between Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada 

and the Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB (“WSFS”) focused on the legality 

and enforceability of a life insurance policy that Sun Life had issued and for which 

WSFS acted as a securities intermediary. 

(2) Because of a prior representation, WSFS moved to disqualify the law 

firm Cozen O’Connor as Sun Life’s counsel in this case. The Court granted the 

motion, disqualified Cozen O’Connor,2and later denied Sun Life’s request for 

reargument of that disqualification order.

3

(3) The Court then certified those two orders for interlocutory appeal,

4

which the Delaware Supreme Court accepted.5 

1

2021 WL 964894 (Del. Mar. 15, 2021).

2

Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y, FSB, 2019 WL 6998156, at 

*8 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2019).

3

Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y, FSB, 2020 WL 1814758 

(Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2020).

4

Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y, FSB, 2020 WL 5415830 

(Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 5, 2020).

5

In re Appeal of Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, 2021 WL 964894, at *1.
-3-

(4) On the same day the Court certified the disqualification orders for 

interlocutory appeal, it entered an order staying further litigation and proceedings 

until resolution of that appeal.6

(5) While the interlocutory appeal was pending, the parties to this action 

reached a settlement agreement. Sun Life then filed in the Supreme Court both a 

notice of voluntary dismissal of its appeal and a motion for vacatur of this Court’s 

orders disqualifying Cozen O’Connor and denying reargument of the 

disqualification issue.7 

(6) The Supreme Court concluded that Cozen O’Connor’s request8for 

vacatur should be granted. As the appeal became subject to dismissal because of an 

event beyond Cozen O’Connor’s control (i.e., the real parties’ settlement), our high 

court found that Cozen O’Connor should not be subject to the potential reputational 

effect of this Court’s disqualification decision—“particularly in light of th[is] [ ] 

Court’s determination that the firm and its attorneys acted with the diligence, 

integrity, and vigilance appropriate to the profession.”9 And so, the matter was 

6 D.I. 136. 

7

In re Appeal of Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, 2021 WL 964894, at *1.

8 After the parties reached their settlement, Cozen O’Connor was granted leave to intervene in 

the appeal and to join in the motion for vacatur then pending in the Supreme Court. Id. 

9

Id. at 2.
-4-

remanded to this Court for the purpose of vacating its December 19, 2019, and April 

9, 2020 decisions and orders.10

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (a) the STAY 

entered on August 5, 2020 (D.I. 136) is hereby LIFTED; (b) the parties’ joint motion 

for entry of DISMISSAL (D.I. 138) is GRANTED—all the parties’ remaining 

claims and counterclaims in this action are DISMISSED with prejudice with each 

party to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees; and (c) the Court’s orders 

disqualifying Cozen O’Connor (D.I. 122)11 and denying reargument of the 

disqualification issue (D.I. 127)12 are hereby VACATED.

 Paul R. Wallace, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: All counsel via File & Serve

10 Id.; D.I. 145 (Supreme Court Mandate). 

11 Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y, FSB, 2019 WL 6998156, at 

*8 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2019).

12 Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y, FSB, 2020 WL 1814758 

(Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2020).