Title: Navigators Insurance Co., et al. v. Murdock, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 144, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 6, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NAVIGATORS INSURANCE 
COMPANY, RSUI INDEMNITY 
COMPANY, and BERKLEY 
INSURANCE COMPANY,  
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
DAVID H. MURDOCK, C. 
MICHAEL CARTER, DOLE FOOD 
COMPANY, INC. and DFC 
HOLDINGS, LLC, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 144, 2018 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court of 
§  the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N16C-01-104 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  March 28, 2018 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:      April 6, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
This 6th day of April 2018, having considered the notice 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 opinion granting 
in part and denying in part the plaintiffs below-appellants’, Navigators Insurance 
Company, RSUI Indemnity Company, and Berkley Insurance Company (“the 
Insurers”), motion for summary judgment.1  The Insurers request an interlocutory 
                                                 
1 Arch Ins. Co. v. Murdock, 2018 WL 1129110 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2018).   
2 
 
appeal from the parts of the opinion holding: (i) Delaware law applied to the 
directors and officers liability policies at issue; and (ii) Delaware public policy did 
not prohibit the Insurers from paying for the fraud of the insureds.   
(2) 
On March 9, 2017, the Insurers filed an application for certification to 
take an interlocutory appeal.  The defendants below-appellees, David H. Murdock, 
C. Michael Carter, Dole Food Company, Inc. and DFS Holdings, LLC (“the 
Insureds”), opposed the application.  On March 28, 2018, the Superior Court denied 
the application after determining certification was not warranted under the principles 
and criteria of Supreme Court Rule 42(b).2   
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.3  In the exercise of our discretion, we have concluded that 
the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for 
certification under Rule 42(b) and should be refused.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
                                                 
2 Arch Ins. Co. v. Murdock, 2018 WL 1560294 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2018).  The Superior 
Court corrected the order on April 2, 2018.   
3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).