Title: Thompson Homes Inc. v. Beitel
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 590, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 20, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMPSON HOMES, INC. and 
§ 
THOMPSON HOMES AT 
 
§ 
No. 590, 2009 
CENTREVILLE, INC.,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
Defendants/Third-Party   
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
JEFFREY C. BEITEL, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Third-Party Defendant Below, § 
C.A. No. 06C-10-075 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 15, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 20, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of October 2009, upon consideration of the appellants’ 
notice and supplemental notice of appeal from an interlocutory order, it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellants, Thompson Homes, Inc. and Thompson Homes 
at Centreville, Inc. (“Thompson”), were sued in the Superior Court for 
breach of a residential construction contract.  Thompson, as third party 
plaintiffs, brought an action against several of the subcontractors associated 
with the construction.  Thereafter, Thompson was granted leave to amend its 
third party complaint to add the appellee, architect Jeffrey C. Beitel, as a 
third party defendant. 
 
2
 
(2) 
By order dated September 16, 2009, the Superior Court granted 
Beitel’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that a contractual 
limitations period precluded Thompson from filing a third party complaint 
against Beitel.  Because the September 16, 2009 order did not resolve all 
claims against all parties, it was not a final judgment.1         
 
(3) 
Thompson has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 42, to appeal from the Superior Court’s order granting Beitel’s motion 
for summary judgment.  On October 13, 2009, the Superior Court denied 
Thompson’s application for certification of an interlocutory appeal. 
 
 
(4) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.2  In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded 
that exceptional circumstances as would merit interlocutory review of the 
Superior Court’s order do not exist in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
                                          
 
1 It does not appear that Thompson sought entry of a final judgment pursuant to Superior 
Court Civil Rule 54(b). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b), (d)(v).