Title: GEICO Insurance Co. v. Green, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 389, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE 
COMPANY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON 
PAIN & REHABILITATION 
CENTER, and REHABILITATION 
ASSOCIATES, P.A. on behalf of 
themselves and all others similarly 
situated, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  Nos. 389, 2019 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N17C-03-242 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
    Submitted:  September 24, 2019 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  October 8, 2019  
 
Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice and supplemental notice of interlocutory 
appeal and the documents attached thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Plaintiffs Yvonne Green, Wilmington Pain & Rehabilitation Center, 
and Rehabilitation Associates, P.A filed a complaint, on behalf of themselves and 
others similarly situated, against GEICO General Insurance Company.  Plaintiffs 
alleged that GEICO used two computerized models to deny valid personal injury 
2 
 
protection (“PIP”) claims of its insureds without evaluating the facts underlying the 
claims. Plaintiffs argued that this practice violated Delaware law and the terms of 
GEICO’s insurance policies.  After briefing and a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for 
class certification, the Superior Court certified a class for the limited purpose of 
determining whether GEICO’s use of the two different models was a breach of 
contract or bad faith breach of contract and to rule on a declaratory judgment.1  The 
Superior Court ruled that it would not determine individual liability or damages.2  
(2) 
On September 5, 2019, GEICO filed an application for certification of 
an interlocutory appeal.  GEICO argued that the Superior Court’s decision 
determined a substantial issue of material importance.  As to the Rule 42(b)(iii) 
criteria, GEICO argued that the Superior Court decision: (i) involved a question of 
law decided for the first time in Delaware—certification of a contested PIP class 
action;3 (ii) conflicted with decisions of the Superior Court, the United States District 
Court for the District of Delaware, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Third Circuit;4 and (iii) related to the construction and application 21 Del. C. § 2118 
and Superior Court Civil Rule 23, which has not been settled, but should be, before 
                                                 
1 Green v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4039609, at *12 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2019). 
2 Id. 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(A). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(B). 
3 
 
an appeal from a final order.5  GEICO also contended that review of the interlocutory 
order could terminate the litigation6 and would serve the interests of justice.7   
(3) 
Plaintiffs opposed the application for certification.  They argued that 
GEICO’s attacks on the Superior Court’s analysis lacked merit and that the Superior 
Court’s decision did not involve a novel question of law, did not conflict with other 
cases, and did not relate to the unsettled construction of 21 Del. C. § 2118 or Rule 
23.  Finally, they contended that interlocutory review would not terminate the 
litigation or serve considerations of justice.       
(4) 
On September 23, 2019, the Superior Court granted the application for 
certification.8  The Superior Court found that the class certification determined a 
substantial issue.9  As to the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria, the Superior Court concluded 
that the class certification arguably related to the construction of a statute and that 
interlocutory review could terminate the class portion of the litigation and would 
serve the interests of justice.10   
(5) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.11  In the exercise of our discretion and despite the Superior 
                                                 
5 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(C). 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(G). 
7 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(H). 
8 Green v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4643937, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 23, 2019). 
9 Id. at *2. 
10 Id. at *3. 
11 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
4 
 
Court’s granting of the application for certification, 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,12 review 
of the order will not terminate the litigation,13 and the potential benefits of 
interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs 
caused by an interlocutory appeal.14   
(6) 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal 
is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
12 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
13 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(G). 
14 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(G).