Title: Geronta Funding v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Co.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 103, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 28, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
GERONTA FUNDING, a Delaware 
statutory trust,  
 
Defendant-Counterclaim 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE 
INSURANCE COMPANY, 
 
Plaintiff-Counterclaim 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§ No. 103, 2019 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§ of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N18C-04-028 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
    Submitted:  March 15, 2019 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:   March 28, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
After considering the notice of appeal and supplemental notice of appeal from 
an interlocutory order under Supreme Court Rule 42, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
This interlocutory appeal arises from a Superior Court bench ruling and 
opinion granting in part and denying in part cross-motions for judgment on the 
pleadings.  As requested by both parties, the Superior Court held that a life insurance 
policy issued by the appellee, Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, to a fictitious 
individual and later purchased by Geronta Funding on the secondary market was 
2 
 
void ab initio.  The Superior Court denied Geronta Funding’s request for rescission 
of the insurance policy and a full refund of all paid premiums, finding that rescission 
of a void contract is not available under Delaware law.  The Superior Court denied 
Brighthouse’s request to leave the parties as they were, finding that Brighthouse 
might be unjustly enriched if it could keep all of the paid premiums and therefore 
restitution might be an appropriate remedy.  The Superior Court also found that 
further development of the record was necessary to determine if Brighthouse had an 
offset claim. 
(2) 
On February 22, 2019, Geronta filed an application for certification of 
an interlocutory appeal.  Geronta argued that certification was appropriate because, 
among other things, the opinion resolved a question of law decided for the first time 
in Delaware, the opinion conflicted with decisions of the United States District Court 
for the District of Delaware, and interlocutory review could terminate the litigation.  
Brighthouse opposed the application.  On March 19, 2019, the Superior Court denied 
the application for certification.  The Superior Court found that its decision followed 
Delaware law, there was no conflict in the decisions of the state courts, the decisions 
of the Delaware District Court were distinguishable, and interlocutory review would 
not terminate the litigation because even if the insurance policy was rescinded, 
Brighthouse’s offset claim had to be resolved. 
3 
 
(3) 
We agree that interlocutory review is not warranted in this case.  
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the 
Court.1  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 
Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  The case is not exceptional,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 HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).