Title: Steadfast Insurance Company v. DBI Services, LLC, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 322, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 31, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEADFAST INSURANCE 
COMPANY,  
 
Plaintiff Below– 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DBI SERVICES, LLC, 
 
Defendant Below– 
Appellee. 
§ 
§     No. 322, 2019 
§ 
§     Court Below – Superior Court 
§     of the State of Delaware 
§   
§     C.A. No.  N18C-03-291 
§   
§   
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Submitted:  July 25, 2019 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  July 31, 2019 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental 
notice of appeal, and the documents attached thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff below, Steadfast Insurance Co. (“Steadfast”), has 
petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory 
appeal from a June 24, 2019 Superior Court order.  The Superior Court’s decision 
granted the partial motion for summary judgment filed by DBI Services, LLC 
(“DBI Services”), and denied the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by 
Steadfast.   On July 3, 2019, Steadfast filed an application for certification to take 
an interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court.  DBI Services opposed the 
 
2 
application.  The Superior Court refused the application in a detailed order dated 
July 25, 2019, explaining why interlocutory review of its decision, which involved 
issues of contract interpretation, was not warranted under the principles and criteria 
of Supreme Court Rule 42(b). 
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.1  In the exercise of its discretion and giving great weight to 
the trial court’s review, this Court has concluded that the application for 
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under 
Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  Exceptional circumstances that would merit 
interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s decision do not exist in this case,2 and 
the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, 
disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).