Court Opinion

ID: 9881671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 17:24:39.504365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:02.435111
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC                       §
 DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW                 § No. 307, 2023
 YORK,                                    §
                                          § Court Below–Superior Court
       Petitioner,                        § of the State of Delaware
                                          §
       v.                                 § C.A. No. N23M-04-138
                                          §
TRINIDAD NAVARRO, in his                  §
official capacity as Delaware             §
Insurance Commissioner,                   §
                                          §
       Respondent.                        §

                           Submitted: August 31, 2023
                           Decided:   October 3, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

                                       ORDER

      After consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental

notice of interlocutory appeal, and their exhibits, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    On April 27, 2023, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New

York (the “Diocese”) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court

to compel Trinidad Navarro, in his official capacity as Delaware Insurance

Commissioner (the “Commissioner”), to initiate liquidation proceedings against

Arrowhead Indemnity Company (“Arrowhead”).

      (2)    Arrowhead moved to intervene, arguing that it satisfied the

requirements for either permissive or as-of-right intervention. On July 27, 2023, the
Superior Court denied Arrowhead’s motion (the “Order”). In so doing, the court

noted that while an insurer is in liquidation, the Commissioner is responsible for

preventing further damage to the insurer and protecting its remaining assets so that

the potential claims of policyholders and creditors can be paid. Because Arrowhead

had failed to point to any facts to support its claim that its interest would not be

adequately protected by the Commissioner, the Superior Court concluded that

Arrowhead was not entitled to intervene as of right.1 And the Superior Court

declined to exercise its discretion to permit Arrowhead to intervene on the basis of

Arrowhead’s conclusory allegation that it had satisfied the requirements of

permissive intervention.2         Arrowhead asked the Superior Court to certify an

interlocutory appeal from the Order. The Diocese opposed the application.

       (3)     On August 28, 2023, the Superior Court denied Arrowhead’s

application.3 As an initial matter, the Superior Court disagreed with Arrowhead’s

position that the Order decided a substantial issue of material importance—a

threshold consideration under Rule 424—because the denial of Arrowhead’s motion

1
  See Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 24(a) (“Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene
in an action: … (2) when an applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction
which is the subject matter of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest,
unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”).
2
  See Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 24(b) (setting forth the conditions under which the Superior Court
may permit an applicant to intervene).
3
  Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, NY v. Navarro, 2023 WL 5551018 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug.
28, 2023).
4
  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(i).
                                                  2
to intervene did not relate to the merits of the case. The court observed that if it

accepted Arrowhead’s position, every trial court decision denying a motion to

intervene would “establish important legal rights.”5 Nevertheless, the Superior

Court analyzed the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors cited by Arrowhead—specifically, Factors

A (the Order decided a novel issue of first impression) and H (interlocutory review

of the Order would serve the considerations of justice)—and concluded that neither

factor supported the certification of an interlocutory appeal. First, the Superior Court

found that Arrowhead’s characterization of the Order as resolving an issue of first

impression focused on the merits of the underlying mandamus action, not the court’s

decision to deny Arrowhead’s motion to intervene. Second, the Superior Court

reasoned that considerations of justice would not be served by interlocutory review

because, among other things, Arrowhead’s interest is adequately protected by the

Commissioner.6 Finally, the Superior Court concluded that certification would not

promote an efficient resolution of the case. The Superior Court therefore denied the

application.

       (4)     We agree with the Superior Court that interlocutory review is not

warranted in this case. Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the

5
  Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, NY, 2023 WL 5551018, at *2.
6
  Indeed, Arrowhead claimed in its application for certification that it had moved to intervene for
the initial purpose of filing a motion to dismiss the Diocese’s petition for failure to state a claim,
and the Superior Court docket reflects that the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim on July 24, 2023.
                                                  3
sound discretion of the Court.7 Exercising our discretion and giving due weight to

the Superior Court’s analysis, we have concluded that the application for

interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule

42(b). Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the

Opinion do not exist,8 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not

outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory

appeal.9

        NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is

REFUSED.

                                      BY THE COURT:

                                      /s/ N. Christopher Griffiths
                                      Justice

7
  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
8
  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii).
9
  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
                                         4