IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., 

n/k/a CONTINENTAL 

AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, 

a/k/a TECHNIFY MOTORS, a 

Delaware Corporation; TECHNIFY 

MOTORS, INC.; and TECHNIFY 

MOTORS GmbH, a foreign 

corporation, 

Defendants Below, 

Appellants, 

v. 

JOSIANE SOUZA DA SILVA 

SOARES, individually and as the 

Personal Representative of the Estate 

of ANTONIO PEREIA SOARES, 

deceased, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 17, 2022 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. K19C-12-028 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: January 18, 2022 

 Decided: February 2, 2022 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

 

 After careful consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the 

supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, and the exhibits, it appears to the Court 

that: 
2 

(1) Defendants below-Appellants, Continental Motors, Inc. 

(“Continental”) and Continental Aerospace Technologies GmbH (“GmbH”),1 have 

petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory 

appeal from the Superior Court’s opinion and order denying their motion to dismiss.2 

(2) This action arises from the crash of an aircraft in Turks and Caicos 

Islands (“TCI”) on December 23, 2017.3 The aircraft was built in Kansas.4 The 

aircraft engine, which was manufactured and tested by GmbH in Germany, was 

installed in the aircraft at Continental’s Alabama facility.5 A Brazilian company 

bought the aircraft, and hired a Brazilian pilot to fly the aircraft from Kansas to 

Brazil.6 Plaintiff below-Appellee Josiane Souza Da Silva Soares’s husband, a 

Brazilian citizen and employee of the Brazilian company, accompanied the pilot on 

the flight.7 During the course of the flight, the aircraft had to make ten planned 

stopovers to refuel. 8 Shortly after takeoff from a planned refueling stop in TCI, the 

aircraft engine failed and lost power.9 A possible cause of the failure was engine 

1

 According to the notice of interlocutory appeal, GmbH was formerly known as Technify 

Motors GmbH – the name listed in the first amended complaint. There was also a third 

defendant, Technify Motors (USA), Inc., that merged with Continental in 2018 and was 

dissolved. 

2 Soares v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 2021 WL 6015701 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2021). 

3

Id. at *2. 

4

Id. 

5

Id. 

6

Id. 

7

Id. 

8

Id. 

9

Id. 
3 

hose failure and/or detachment.10 Plaintiff’s husband and the pilot died in the 

crash.11

(3) Plaintiff filed a products liability action against Defendants on 

December 20, 2019.12 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the 

cause of action arose in TCI under Delaware’s choice-of-law rules and was barred 

by TCI’s one-year statute of limitations.13 Plaintiff contended that the cause of 

action did not arise in TCI because TCI was a fortuitous location of injury.14

(4) On December 17, 2021, the Superior Court denied the motion to 

dismiss. Based on the complaint, the court found that the location of the crash was 

fortuitous and that TCI did not have the most significant relationship with the 

occurrence and the parties. 15 The court deferred determination of which jurisdiction 

had the most significant relationship for a future time when the record was 

sufficiently developed.16 

(5) On December 27, 2021, Defendants filed a timely application for 

certification of an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff opposed the application. On 

January 18, 2022, the Superior Court denied the application for certification.17 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. at *1. 

13 Id. at *2-3. 

14 Id. at *4. 

15 Id. at *5-11. 

16 Id. a *11. 

17 Soares v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 2022 WL 153239 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan 18, 2022). 
4 

(6) Finding that the interlocutory opinion determined a main question of 

law relating to the merits of the case and assuming that it raised a legal right, the 

Superior Court next addressed the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria Defendants relied upon for 

certification.18 As to Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) (question of law resolved for the first time 

in Delaware), the court found that the opinion applied well-settled legal principles 

to the facts of the case.19 The court concluded that the limited scope of the opinion, 

which did not include a complete choice-of-law analysis, did not implicate Rule 

42(b)(iii)(B) (conflicting trial court decisions on question of law).20 As to Rule 

42(b)(iii)(C) (question of law relating to constitutionality, construction, or 

application of statute that has not been, and should be, settled by this Court), the 

court found that the construction and application of the borrowing statute, 10 Del. 

C. § 8121 was well-settled.21 In light of the court’s determination that further 

development of the record was necessary to decide which jurisdiction had the most 

significant relationship, the court held that Rule 42(b)(iii)(G) (review of the 

interlocutory order may terminate the litigation) did not weigh in favor of 

certification.22 The Superior Court also concluded that interlocutory review would 

not serve considerations of justice (Rule 42(b)(iii)(H)) because a final determination 

18 Id. at *2. 

19 Id. at *3. 

20 Id. at *4. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 
5 

on choice-of-law required discovery that should not be further delayed.23 After 

considering these factors, the court held that the probable costs of interlocutory 

review did not outweigh the benefits of certification.24 

(7) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 

discretion of the Court.25 In the exercise of its discretion and giving due weight to 

the Superior Court’s analysis, this Court has concluded that the application for 

interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under 

Supreme Court Rule 42(b). We agree with the Superior Court that interlocutory 

review is not warranted in light of the further development of the record necessary 

for determination of choice-of-law in this case. Exceptional circumstances that 

would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s interlocutory opinion do 

not exist in this case,26 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not 

outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory 

appeal.27 

23 Id. at *5. 

24 Id.

25 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 

26 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 

27 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 
6 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 

REFUSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice