Title: Dr. Nicholas, et al. v. National Union Fire Insuance Co., et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 209, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 20, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DR. HENRY T. NICHOLAS, III, 
§ 
WILIAM J. RUEHLE, and 
 
§  No. 209, 2013 
DR. HENRY SAMUELI, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  Court Below – Superior Court 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§  in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  C.A. No. N12C-07-311 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
NATIONAL UNION FIRE  
 
§ 
INSURANCE COMPANY OF   
§ 
PITTSBURGH, PA, et al.,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
   Submitted:  April 25, 2013 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:  May 20, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and 
RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc. 
 
 
Upon consideration of a Rule To Show Cause.  REMANDED. 
 
Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire, Potter, Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 
Wilmington, Delaware, for appellants. 
 
Carmella P. Keener, Esquire, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., 
Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee, Federal Insurance Company and XL 
Specialty Insurance Company. 
 
Edward M. McNally, Esquire and Patricia A. Winston, Esquire, 
Morris James LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee, National Union 
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
John D. Balaguer, Esquire and Timothy S. Martin, Esquire, White and 
Williams LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee, Twin City Fire 
Insurance Company. 
2 
 
 
Neal J. Levitsky, Esquire and Seth A. Niederman, Esquire, Fox 
Rothschild, LLP, for appellee, Arch Insurance Company. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice: 
 
 
3 
 
A Notice of Appeal was filed in this Court on April 19, 2013 (Trans. 
ID 51880229).  This Court’s electronic filing system generated a rule to 
show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.  The 
Appellants and the Appellees have each addressed the issue of timeliness.  
We have decided to remand this matter to the Superior Court. 
Facts 
On March 19, 2013, the Delaware Superior Court issued an Opinion 
and Order granting Appellees’ Joint Motion to Dismiss in Civil Action No. 
N12C-07-311 JRJ CCLD (Trans. ID 51207563).  On April 18, 2013, 
Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal of the Opinion and Order via 
LexisNexis File & Serve, the filing system for both the Delaware Superior 
Court and Delaware Supreme Court.  The Notice of Appeal contained the 
correct Supreme Court caption and fulfilled the requirements of Supreme 
Court Rule 7.  Due to a clerical error in the office of the Appellants’ 
attorney, while using the eFiling system, the Appellants filed their Notice of 
Appeal in the Superior Court rather than in this Court.   
 
Appellants received a confirmation receipt for the Notice of Appeal 
from the Superior Court’s LexisNexis File and Serve assigning Transaction 
ID 51862782 to the filing.  The next morning, the Appellants discovered the 
error and immediately prepared to seek a transfer to the Supreme Court 
4 
 
pursuant to title 10, section 1902 of the Delaware Code (“section 1902”).  
Prior to the Appellants filing of their petition to transfer, the Superior Court 
electronic filing system rejected the Notice of Appeal for being “filed in 
incorrect Court.”1  As a result of the Superior Court’s rejection, the 
Appellants could not petition to transfer the Notice of Appeal to this Court.   
Rejection Improper 
 
The Appellants’ Notice of Appeal clearly indicated their intent to file 
in the Supreme Court.  The Superior Court’s electronic filing system 
allowed the Appellants to timely file their Supreme Court papers in the 
Superior Court and assigned the filing a transaction identification number.  
All parties received notice of the filing and were served with the appeal 
paperwork on the April 18, 2013 filing deadline.  
 
This Court has held that “no notice of appeal should ever be refused 
by a clerk for filing if the intention to appeal is clear from the document 
filed.”2  Similarly, a notice of appeal should not be rejected automatically by 
the File and Serve system.  The sufficiency of an appeal is a legal question 
“to be determined by a judge after notice to the appellant and an opportunity 
                                          
 
1 We note that is not a reason for rejection that is listed in the Superior Court Proper eFile 
Procedures.   
2 Kostyshyn v. State, 3 A.3d 1097, 2010 WL 3398943, at *1 (Del. Aug. 30, 2010) (table).   
5 
 
to be heard.”3  This process was not followed as a result of the Superior 
Court’s automated filing system.   
Transfer Statute Applies 
The Appellants assert that but for the improper automatic electronic 
rejection of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellants would have applied to 
transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 1902.4  Section 
1902 provides that, “[f]or the purpose of laches or of any statute of 
limitations, the time of bringing the proceeding shall be deemed to be the 
time when it was brought in the first court.”  In Family Court of Delaware v. 
Giles,5 this Court recognized that section 1902 is “remedial in nature and 
designed to prevent a case from being dismissed simply because it was 
initiated in the wrong Court.”6  In Giles, we noted that “[a]ccording to its 
express terms section 1902 should be liberally applied to achieve its 
purposes.”7   
                                          
 
3 Id. 
4 Section 1902 provides that “[n]o civil action, suit or other proceeding brought in any 
court of this State shall be dismissed solely on the ground that such court is without 
jurisdiction of the subject matter, either in the original proceeding or on appeal.”  
(emphasis added).   
5 Family Court of Delaware v. Giles, 384 A.2d 623 (Del. 1978). 
6 Id. at 624. 
7 Id. 
6 
 
 
In Giles, this Court held that section 1902 is “a legitimate vehicle” for 
transferring an appeal to the appropriate court rather than dismissing it.8  The 
same is true in this case.  Given the clear intent to timely file an appeal in the 
Supreme Court and the remedial nature of section 1902, we hold, in 
accordance with Giles, that the Appellants should have the opportunity to 
transfer their appeal to this Court.9  To the extent that Spry v. Gill10 is 
inconsistent with our holding in this case, it is overruled.     
Conclusion 
 
This matter is remanded to the Superior Court to accept the Notice of 
Appeal nunc pro tunc and to allow the Appellants to transfer this matter to 
this Court pursuant to section 1902.  Jurisdiction is retained. 
                                          
 
8 Id.  See also Harbison v. State, 667 A.2d 1319, 1995 WL 496929, at *2 (Del. Aug. 14, 
1995) (table); Carney v. Qualls, 514 A.2d 1126, 1127-28 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986).   
9 See Johnson v. Div. of Child Protective Servs., 551 A.2d 825, 1988 WL 137203, at *1 
(Del. Nov 4, 1988) (table) (remanding after Superior Court sua sponte dismissed appeal). 
10 Spry v. Gill, 639 A.2d 74, 1994 WL 87344 (Del. Feb. 17, 1994).