Title: Dematic Corp. v. Fortis Advisors, LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 180, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 7, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEMATIC CORP.,  
 
 
§ 
§ 
No. 180, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendant Below, Appellant, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
FORTIS ADVISORS, LLC, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N18C-12-104 
 
Plaintiff Below, Appellee.  
§ 
 
Submitted: 
April 17, 2024 
Decided: 
May 7, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Now this 7th day of May 2024, the Court having considered this matter on the briefs 
and oral arguments of the parties and the record below and having concluded that the same 
should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its 
Post-Trial Memorandum Opinion dated December 29, 2022; its Final Order and Judgment 
dated April 24, 2023, and its Stipulation and Amended Final Order and Judgment dated 
May 3, 2023.1 
 
1 In this appeal, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Fortis Advisors, LLC, argues on cross-appeal that the 
Superior Court erred when it granted a set-off to indemnify Dematic Corp. for certain legal fees 
and settlement costs incurred in a related litigation.  Specifically, Fortis argues that the Superior 
Court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on it as opposed to placing the burden on Dematic 
Corp.  The Superior Court found that Fortis did not offer any persuasive testimony regarding the 
reasonableness of the set-off amounts.  The trial court’s opinion indicates that it was satisfied that 
Dematic had put forward evidence sufficient to support the reasonableness of the set-off.   This 
evidence included testimony from Dematic’s head of accounting who testified that he authorized 
the settlement amount after consultation with Dematic’s executives and lawyers, and that the 
amount authorized was consistent with Dematic’s estimates created during due diligence regarding 
the likely cost of resolving that related litigation.  The court also noted that Fortis did nothing to 
 
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision and judgments of the 
Superior Court be and the same hereby are AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
rebut this testimony.  Based upon the record before us, we conclude that, to the extent the trial 
court erred in allocating the burden of proof on this issue, it is not reversible error.