Title: Illinois Union Insurance Company v. Providence Service Corporation
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 345, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 20, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE 
COMPANY,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
PROVIDENCE SERVICE 
CORPORATION, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§ No. 345, 2019 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§ of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N18C-06-114  
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
    Submitted:  August 8, 2019 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:     August 20, 2019  
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental 
notice of appeal, and the documents attached hereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant below-appellant, Illinois Union Insurance Company 
(“Chubb”), has petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an 
interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court opinion, dated July 9, 2019, granting the 
motion for partial summary judgment filed by the plaintiff below-appellee, 
Providence Service Corporation, and denying the cross-motion for summary 
 
 
judgment filed by Chubb.1  The Superior Court held that the professional incidents 
in two different lawsuits were not related for purposes of the Prior Acts or Prior 
Notice Exclusion in the excess insurance policy issued by Chubb.   
(2) 
On July 19, 2019, Chubb filed an application for certification of an 
interlocutory appeal.  Chubb argued that the Superior Court’s decision determined a 
substantial issue of material importance, there were conflicting trial court decisions 
on the question of law resolved in the decision, and review of the decision might 
terminate the litigation and would serve the interests of justice.  Providence opposed 
the application.   
(3) 
On August 7, 2019, the Superior Court denied the application.   
Applying the Rule 42 criteria, the Superior Court concluded that the opinion 
determined a substantial issue, but that there were not conflicting trial court 
decisions and that review would not substantially reduce further litigation or serve 
the interests of justice.   
(4) 
We agree that interlocutory review is not warranted in this case.  
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the 
Court.2  In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application 
for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under 
                                                 
1 Providence Serv. Corp. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3854261 (Del. July 9, 2019).   
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
 
 
Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  The case is not exceptional,3 and the potential benefits 
of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable 
costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
                                                 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).