Opinion ID: 1537010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chilson's appeal was timely.

Text: Initially, Allstate responds that Chilson's appeal from the Superior Court's grant of a new trial is untimely. Allstate argues that a judgment is final for the purpose of appeal when a timely motion for reargument has been decided and Chilson did not file her appeal within thirty days after the court denied her motion for reargument on the new trial issue. [9] This argument is without merit. Although a motion for reargument following the denial of a motion for a new trial is a final judgment; [10] it is well-established that an order granting a new trial is an interlocutory order. [11] Supreme Court Rule 42(f) governs a party's failure to seek review of an interlocutory order. It states: [t]he failure to seek review of or the refusal of the Court to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order under this rule shall not bar a party from seeking review of such interlocutory order on appeal from the final order, judgment or decree. [12] The final judgment of the Superior Court was entered on December 3, 2008. Chilson filed this appeal on December 16, 2008. Therefore, her appeal of the order granting a new trial was timely, and will be considered on the merits.