1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JENNELL WILLIAMS-ZAHIR, )

Individually, and as PERSONAL )

REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE OF )

ARIF ZAHIR, )

)

Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. N19C-05-116 CEB

)

 v. )

)

BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

Submitted: June 30, 2023

 Decided: December 14, 2023

ORDER

Upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and Interest

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Timothy E. Lengkeek, Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, 

Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney For Plaintiff.

James E. Drnec, Esquire, Phillip M. Casale, Esquire, Wharton, Levin, Wilmington, 

Delaware. Attorneys for Defendant. 

BUTLER, R.J.
2

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion for costs in this matter, there are two issues 

the parties would have me resolve before getting down to the dollars and cents: 

where does Defendant Bayhealth reside for purposes of assessing costs and whether 

the Covid related delays in the trial should toll the running of prejudgment interest. 

COSTS

By statute, costs are not recoverable where the litigation is brought in a county 

other than the one in which the defendant “resides.”

1

 So, where does Bayhealth 

reside? Plaintiff directs the Court to Bounds v. Delmarva Power & Light Co.,

2

a case 

in which Judge Vaughn ruled that Delmarva Power resides in all three counties 

because of its “extensive presence” throughout the State. The defense directs the 

Court to other decisions against less notable entities, where costs were not allowed.3

In Zazanis v. Jarman,4 which appears to be the first case interpreting where 

corporations “reside” within the meaning of section 5102, the Court said “[t]here 

1 10 Del. C. § 5102 (“Wherever suit is brought in any civil action, excepting action 

where the venue is by law local, against any citizen of this State, in any other county 

than that wherein such citizens resides at the time of the inception thereof, the 

plaintiff shall not recover costs and such costs shall not be payable by the defendant 

nor collectible by execution process.”).

2 2004 WL 343974 (Del. Super. Jan. 30, 2004).

3 E.g., W & G Milford Associates, L.P. v. Jeffcor, Inc., 1991 WL 113353, at *4 (Del. 

Super. Apr. 12, 1991) (principal place of business Kent and Sussex, suit brought in 

New Castle; no costs).

4 1990 WL 58158 (Del. Super. Mar. 20, 1990).
3

does exist some difference of opinion among the cases where exactly that residence 

will be. Some hold that it is the principal office or principal place of business or 

where the corporate books are kept or the county which is designated on the 

certificate of incorporation.”

5

 Alas, the issue was a layup for the Zazanis Court, 

since the fire company in question had but one location.

Thus, the only working rubric we have to determine Bayhealth’s “residence”

in the decisional law appears to be Judge Vaughn’s term “extensive presence” in all 

three counties. Defendant says Bayhealth is incorporated in Kent County and has 

two freestanding hospitals, one in Kent and one in Sussex County. While its 

relevance is uncertain, Defendant points out that the claims giving rise to this suit 

occurred in the Kent County hospital and it was only Plaintiff’s choice that 

Bayhealth was sued in New Castle County. Plaintiff points out that Bayhealth has a 

“facility” in Middletown, New Castle County, but Bayhealth notes that Christiana 

Care is by far the larger presence in New Castle County. 

Adopting Judge Vaughn’s “extensive presence” test for determining 

residence, the Court cannot conclude that Bayhealth has an extensive presence in 

New Castle County. Bayhealth is a native and well-known inhabitant of Kent 

County and Sussex County. It may have a facility in New Castle County, but it 

5

Id. at *4.
4

cannot be said its presence here is “extensive” in the way Delmarva Power was in 

the Bounds decision. I therefore conclude that Plaintiff is barred from recovery of 

costs by operation of 10 Del. C. § 5102.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

The parties dispute the pretrial delays and their impact on prejudgment 

interest. They do not dispute that suit was brought in this Court in May, 2019 and 

in March, 2020, the Court (and most of the country) went into the Covid lockdown, 

making judicial proceedings difficult, if not impossible. There was an assigned trial 

date in April 2021 and the parties were given a choice of a bench trial or a 

rescheduling as no jury trials were proceeding during Covid; they chose to 

reschedule. A second date in May, 2022 was more promising as the courthouse was 

reopening, but the date could not be guaranteed due to the other cases in the backlog 

and, given the number of medical witnesses involved, the parties stipulated to a 

rescheduling. The case was finally scheduled – and tried – in June 2023. 

Defendant agrees that it is responsible for prejudgment interest in a tort case 

involving wrongful death.6 But, it says, it was not the cause of the delay from 2021 

6 See 6 Del. C. § 2301(d) (“In any tort action for compensatory damages in the 

Superior Court or the Court of Common Pleas seeking monetary relief for bodily 

injuries, death or property damage, interest shall be added to any final judgment 

entered for damages awarded, calculated at the rate established in subsection (a) of 

this section, commencing from the date of injury, provided that prior to trial the 
5

to 2023 in getting the matter to trial and it therefore should not be saddled with the 

prejudgment interest during this period. 

The delay itself, and its causes, are unfortunate for all, but they are largely 

irrelevant under the statute, which is blind to the reasons for the length of time 

between “date of injury” to the jury’s verdict. Plaintiff fulfilled the conditions 

precedent to the availability of prejudgment interest and it is the Court’s duty to 

impose it regardless of the reasons.7

CONCLUSION

These rulings likely moot some of the disputations in the pleadings on the 

more granular issues. I would like – but probably will not get – a draft final order 

agreed to by the parties that implements the Court’s rulings. I will leave the math to 

the parties as I have no facility for the subject. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Charles E. Butler

Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge 

plaintiff had extended to defendant a written settlement demand valid for a minimum

of 30 days in an amount less than the amount of damages upon which the judgment 

was entered.”).

7 Covid has repeatedly been rejected as a basis for tolling the running of prejudgment 

interest. See, e.g., Halaszi v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, 2023 WL 2980454, at *3–5

(Del. Super. Apr. 13, 2023); Permint v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 2022 WL 

2443009, at *2 (Del. Super. June 23, 2022).