Title: Continental Motors, Inc. v. Soares
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 17, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., 
n/k/a CONTINENTAL 
AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, 
a/k/a TECHNIFY MOTORS, a 
Delaware Corporation; TECHNIFY 
MOTORS, INC.; and TECHNIFY 
MOTORS GmbH, a foreign 
corporation,  
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
JOSIANE SOUZA DA SILVA 
SOARES, individually and as the 
Personal Representative of the Estate 
of ANTONIO PEREIA SOARES, 
deceased, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§   
§  No. 17, 2022 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. K19C-12-028 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
  Submitted:    January 18, 2022 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:       February 2, 2022  
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
After careful consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the 
supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, and the exhibits, it appears to the Court 
that: 
2 
 
(1) 
 Defendants 
below-Appellants, 
Continental 
Motors, 
Inc. 
(“Continental”) and Continental Aerospace Technologies GmbH (“GmbH”),1 have 
petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory 
appeal from the Superior Court’s opinion and order denying their motion to dismiss.2   
(2) 
This action arises from the crash of an aircraft in Turks and Caicos 
Islands (“TCI”) on December 23, 2017.3  The aircraft was built in Kansas.4  The 
aircraft engine, which was manufactured and tested by GmbH in Germany, was 
installed in the aircraft at Continental’s Alabama facility.5  A Brazilian company 
bought the aircraft, and hired a Brazilian pilot to fly the aircraft from Kansas to 
Brazil.6  Plaintiff below-Appellee Josiane Souza Da Silva Soares’s husband, a 
Brazilian citizen and employee of the Brazilian company, accompanied the pilot on 
the flight.7   During the course of the flight, the aircraft had to make ten planned 
stopovers to refuel. 8  Shortly after takeoff from a planned refueling stop in TCI, the 
aircraft engine failed and lost power.9  A possible cause of the failure was engine 
 
1 According to the notice of interlocutory appeal, GmbH was formerly known as Technify 
Motors GmbH – the name listed in the first amended complaint.  There was also a third 
defendant, Technify Motors (USA), Inc., that merged with Continental in 2018 and was 
dissolved.    
2 Soares v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 2021 WL 6015701 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2021). 
3 Id. at *2. 
4 Id.  
5 Id.  
6 Id.  
7 Id.  
8 Id.  
9 Id.  
3 
 
hose failure and/or detachment.10  Plaintiff’s husband and the pilot died in the 
crash.11 
(3) 
Plaintiff filed a products liability action against Defendants on 
December 20, 2019.12  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the 
cause of action arose in TCI under Delaware’s choice-of-law rules and was barred 
by TCI’s one-year statute of limitations.13  Plaintiff contended that the cause of 
action did not arise in TCI because TCI was a fortuitous location of injury.14 
(4) 
On December 17, 2021, the Superior Court denied the motion to 
dismiss.  Based on the complaint, the court found that the location of the crash was 
fortuitous and that TCI did not have the most significant relationship with the 
occurrence and the parties. 15   The court deferred determination of which jurisdiction 
had the most significant relationship for a future time when the record was 
sufficiently developed.16     
(5) 
On December 27, 2021, Defendants filed a timely application for 
certification of an interlocutory appeal.  Plaintiff opposed the application.  On 
January 18, 2022, the Superior Court denied the application for certification.17   
 
10 Id.  
11 Id.  
12 Id. at *1. 
13 Id. at *2-3. 
14 Id. at *4. 
15 Id. at *5-11. 
16 Id. a *11. 
17 Soares v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 2022 WL 153239 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan 18, 2022). 
4 
 
(6) 
Finding that the interlocutory opinion determined a main question of 
law relating to the merits of the case and assuming that it raised a legal right, the 
Superior Court next addressed the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria Defendants relied upon for 
certification.18  As to Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) (question of law resolved for the first time 
in Delaware), the court found that the opinion applied well-settled legal principles 
to the facts of the case.19  The court concluded that the limited scope of the opinion, 
which did not include a complete choice-of-law analysis, did not implicate Rule 
42(b)(iii)(B) (conflicting trial court decisions on question of law).20  As to Rule 
42(b)(iii)(C) (question of law relating to constitutionality, construction, or 
application of statute that has not been, and should be, settled by this Court), the 
court found that the construction and application of the borrowing statute, 10 Del. 
C. § 8121 was well-settled.21  In light of the court’s determination that further 
development of the record was necessary to decide which jurisdiction had the most 
significant relationship, the court held that Rule 42(b)(iii)(G) (review of the 
interlocutory order may terminate the litigation) did not weigh in favor of 
certification.22  The Superior Court also concluded that interlocutory review would 
not serve considerations of justice (Rule 42(b)(iii)(H)) because a final determination 
 
18 Id. at *2. 
19 Id. at *3. 
20 Id. at *4. 
21 Id.  
22 Id.  
5 
 
on choice-of-law required discovery that should not be further delayed.23  After 
considering these factors, the court held that the probable costs of interlocutory 
review did not outweigh the benefits of certification.24  
(7) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.25  In the exercise of its discretion and giving due weight to 
the Superior Court’s analysis, this Court has concluded that the application for 
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under 
Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  We agree with the Superior Court that interlocutory 
review is not warranted in light of the further development of the record necessary 
for determination of choice-of-law in this case.  Exceptional circumstances that 
would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s interlocutory opinion do 
not exist in this case,26 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not 
outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory 
appeal.27   
 
 
 
23 Id. at *5. 
24 Id. 
25 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
26 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
27 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 
6 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice