Court Opinion

ID: 9927424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-27 03:01:45.586955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:38.069831
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE            )
COMPANY, on its own behalf and as    )
successor-in-interest to ZURICH      ) C.A. No. N23C-02-232 MAA CCLD
INSURANCE COMPANY, U.S.              )
BRANCH; AMERICAN                     )
GUARANTEE AND LIABILTY               )
INSURANCE COMPANY;                   )
AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE            )
COMPANY, and STEADFAST               )
INSURANCE COMPANY,                   )
                                     )
           Plaintiffs,
                                     )
           v.                        )
                                     )
STERIGENICS U.S., LLC; SOTERA
                                     )
HEALTH LLC; NATIONAL UNION
                                     )
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
                                     )
PITTSBURGH, PA; SENTRY
                                     )
INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST
                                     )
STATE INSURANCE COMPANY;
                                     )
NEW ENGLAND REINSURANCE
                                     )
CORPORATION; FEDERAL
                                     )
INSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB
                                     )
CUSTOM INSURANCE COMPANY;
COLUMBIA CASUALTY                    )
COMPANY; LEXINGTON                   )
INSURANCE COMPANY; THE               )
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE             )
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA;               )
OAKWOOD INSURANCE                    )
COMPANY, as successor by merger to   )
CENTRAL NATIONAL INSURANCE           )
COMPANY OF OMAHA; XYZ                )
INSURANCE COMPANIES 1-50; and        )
GRIFFITHS FOODS                      )
INTERNATIONAL INC.,
                                     )
           Defendants.               )
                          Submitted: October 24, 2023
                           Decided: January 26, 2024

   Upon Sterigenics U.S., LLC, Sotera Health LLC, Chubb Custom Insurance
 Company, Federal Insurance Company, Oakwood Insurance Company, Central
 National Insurance Company, and Griffith Foods International Inc.’s Motions to
                               Dismiss or Stay:

                   GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bruce W. McCullough, Esquire, of BODELL BOVÉ, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware,
and Louis A. Bové, Esquire (Argued), of BODELL BOVÉ, LLC, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Zurich American Insurance Company,
American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, American Zurich Insurance
Company, and Steadfast Insurance Company.

David J. Baldwin, Esquire (Argued), and Peter C. McGivney, Esquire, of BERGER
HARRIS LLP, Wilmington Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants Sterigenics U.S.,
LLC and Sotera Health LLC.

Stamatios Stamoulis, Esquire, of STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC, Wilmington,
Delaware, and Kevin R. O’Neill, Esquire (Argued), of WALKER WILCOX
MATOUSEK LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Defendants Chubb Custom
Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, Oakwood Insurance Company,
and Central National Insurance Company.

Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire, and Carla M. Jones, Esquire, of POTTER
ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, and James Davis,
Esquire (Argued), of PERKINS COIE LLP, Seattle, Washington, and Bradley Dlatt,
Esquire, of PERKINS COIE LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Defendant
Griffith Foods International Inc.

Adams, J.
                                  INTRODUCTION

        Plaintiffs Zurich American Insurance Company (“ZAIC”), on its own behalf

and as successor-in-interest to Zurich Insurance Company, U.S. Branch (“ZIC”),

along with American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”),

American Zurich Insurance Company (“AZIC” and, together with ZAIC, ZIC, and

AGLIC, “Zurich”), and Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast” and, together

with Zurich, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action to resolve coverage issues stemming from

hundreds of underlying lawsuits relating to the release of ethylene oxide (“EtO”)

from sterilization plants in Illinois.

        Defendants Sterigenics U.S., LLC (“Sterigenics”), Sotera Health LLC

(“Sotera”), Chubb Custom Insurance Company (“Chubb”), Federal Insurance

Company (“Federal”), Oakwood Insurance Company (“Oakwood”), Central

National Insurance Company of Omaha (“Central”), and Griffith Foods International

Inc. (“Griffith” and together with Sterigenics, Sotera, Chubb, Federal, Oakwood,

and Central, “Defendants”) have each moved to dismiss or stay this action in favor

of litigation in Illinois. This is the Court’s decision on those motions. For the

reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part.

                                         1
                                         FACTS1

         This action is the byproduct of numerous lawsuits brought against Griffith,

Sterigenics, and Sotera (the “EtO Litigation”).2 The many plaintiffs in those lawsuits

allege that EtO emissions from sterilization plants in Willowbrook, Illinois caused

them injuries.3 The proper allocation of the costs from those lawsuits is now the

focus of this, and other, litigation.

    I.   The Underlying EtO Lawsuits

            A. The Operation of the Sterilization Plants

         In 1984, Griffith began operating sterilization facilities in Willowbrook,

Illinois through an unincorporated division called Micro-Biotrol.4 A succession of

Griffith-owned entities continued to operate the plants until 1999.5 In 1999, Griffith

sold the equity of its then-operative subsidiary, Griffith Micro Science International,

Inc., to Ion Beam Applications, S.A., a Belgian company.6 Sterigenics, which was

formerly Ion Beam Applications, Inc., is now wholly owned by Sotera.7 Sotera and

Sterigenics operated the Willowbrook sterilization plants after Griffith.8

1
  Unless otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from the Amended Complaint.
2
  Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (D.I. 80).
3
  Id.
4
  Id. ¶ 52.
5
  Id. ¶¶ 53–54.
6
  Id. ¶¶ 54, 88.
7
  Id. ¶¶ 15, 93.
8
  Id. ¶¶ 61–62.
                                             2
       EtO is a toxic carcinogen that was emitted from the Willowbrook sterilization

plants.9 In addition to increasing the risk of cancer, it can cause a variety of serious

ailments and diseases.10 The plaintiffs in the EtO Litigation allege that Griffith,

Sterigenics, and Sotera lied about the level of EtO emissions from the Willowbrook

plants.11 They claim the true amount of EtO emissions was dangerous, and that

Griffith, Sterigenics, and Sotera ignored scientific and governmental guidance while

operating the plants.12 In 2019, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

ordered Sterigenics to cease operation of the Willowbrook plants until it could rein

in the EtO emissions.13 Sterigenics and Sotera never reopened the facilities.14

           B. The Ensuing Litigation

       Following a 2018 report by a federal agency that outlined the risks posed by

the Willowbrook sterilization plants, lawsuits began flooding in.15 Specifically,

more than 800 lawsuits naming over 1,000 plaintiffs have been filed in Illinois state

court against Sterigenics, Sotera, and Griffith.16 Many, but not all, were consolidated

into a single action for discovery and pretrial purposes.17 In September 2022, one of

9
   Id. ¶ 39.
10
    Id. ¶ 47.
11
    Id. ¶¶ 56, 63.
12
    Id. ¶¶ 57, 63
13
    Id. ¶ 64.
14
    Id. ¶ 65.
15
    Id. ¶¶ 40–41.
16
    Id. ¶¶ 40–41, 43–44.
17
    Id. ¶¶ 42, 46.
                                           3
the first EtO trials resulted in a finding against Sterigenics, Sotera, and Griffiths.18

The jury in that case awarded more than $350 million in compensatory and punitive

damages, and found Sterigenics 65% liable, Sotera 30% liable, and Griffith 5%

liable.19

       Thereafter, Sotera settled many of the pending EtO lawsuits for $408 million,

and Griffith settled many of the lawsuits against it for $48 million.20 By September

2022, Sterigenics had reportedly incurred more than $75 million in defense costs,

and Griffith had reportedly incurred more than $16 million in defense costs.21

II.    The Relevant Insurance Policies

            A. The Zurich Policies

       Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint outlines a network of policies issued by

Zurich and Steadfast that are potentially implicated in this matter. It sorts these

policies into three groups: (1) the “Zurich-Sotera Pollution Policy;” (2) the

“Zurich-GMSI/IBA Policies;” and (3) the “Zurich-Griffith Policies.”22 The precise

details of these policies are not necessary to resolve the present motions; instead, an

overview suffices.

18
   Id. ¶ 67.
19
    Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss or Stay, Ex. E (D.I. 138).
20
    Louis Bové Certification in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss or Stay (“Bové Cert.”) ¶¶ 9–10 (D.I. 138).
21
    Id. ¶¶ 11–12.
22
    Am. Compl. ¶¶ 71–156.
                                                4
       Steadfast issued the Zurich-Sotera Pollution Policy to Sotera Health Holdings

LLC.23 Its policy period ran from July 2018 to July 2021.24 As its label suggests, it

insured against losses resulting from defined pollution events.25 Plaintiffs allege that

the applicable $10 million limit was exhausted in November 2020.26

       The Zurich-GMSI/IBA Policies are six commercial general liability policies

issued by ZAIC. The first five of these policies were issued to Griffith Micro

Science International, Inc. and collectively ran from September 1999 to January

2004.27 The sixth policy was issued to Ion Beam Applications, Inc. and ran from

January 2004 to January 2005.28 Certain of the Zurich-GMSI/IBA Policies name

additional insured entities and contain “Broad Named Insured Endorsements.”29

Nevertheless, Plaintiffs allege Sterigenics and Sotera are “not identified as a Named

Insured on any of the Zurich-GMSI/IBA Policies.”30 These policies contain an

exclusion for losses resulting from certain defined pollution.31

       Turning to the Zurich-Griffith Policies, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint

breaks them into four subsets: (1) the “1985-1999 Zurich-Griffith Policies;” (2) the

23
   Id. ¶ 72.
24
   Id.
25
   Id. ¶ 74.
26
   Id. ¶ 79.
27
   Id. ¶ 83.
28
   Id.
29
   Id. ¶¶ 85–87.
30
   Id. ¶¶ 94–95.
31
   Id. ¶ 101.
                                           5
“1996 to 1999 Zurich-Griffith XS Policies;” (3) the “Post-Sale Zurich-Griffith CGL

Policies;” and (4) the “Post-Sale Zurich-Griffith UMB Policies.”

       The 1985-1999 Zurich-Griffith Policies are a series of occurrence-based

commercial general liability policies issued by ZAIC either individually or as

successor-in-interest to ZIC.32 Zurich alleges that fourteen policies were issued with

policy periods collectively running from September 1985 to September 1999.33

Griffith Laboratories, Inc. and a sequence of Griffith subsidiaries were named

insureds throughout that period.34 Zurich contends that Sotera and Sterigenics were

not named insureds under any of these policies.35 The 1985-1999 Zurich-Griffith

Policies had a variety of pollution exclusions in effect at different times during the

relevant period.36

       The 1996 to 1999 Zurich-Griffith XS Policies are three high excess indemnity

policies that collectively ran from September 1996 to September 1999. 37 ZAIC, as

successor-in-interest to ZIC, issued the first two policies, and AZIC issued the

third.38 Griffith Laboratories, Inc. was the named insured on the first and third

policies, and Griffith Micro Science, Inc. was named on the second.39 Again, Zurich

32
   Id. ¶ 105.
33
   Id.
34
   Id. ¶¶ 105–06.
35
   Id. ¶¶ 108–09.
36
   Id. ¶¶ 114–19.
37
   Id. ¶ 121.
38
   Id.
39
   Id.
                                          6
says Sterigenics and Sotera are not named insureds under these policies.40 These

policies, too, contain specific pollution exclusions.41

       The Post-Sale Zurich-Griffith CGL Policies are eleven occurrence-based

commercial general liability policies issued by ZAIC to Griffith Laboratories, Inc.

following the 1999 sale of Griffith Micro Science International, Inc.42 The first two

ran from September 1999 to September 2001, and the rest collectively ran from July

2006 to October 2015.43        Zurich alleges that none of the relevant Griffith

subsidiaries, nor Sterigenics and Sotera, are named insureds under the Post-Sale

Zurich-Griffith CGL Policies.44 Different pollution exclusions applied at different

times under this set of policies.45

       Last, the Post-Sale Zurich-Griffith UMB Policies are a set of eight

commercial umbrella polices that collectively ran from July 2006 to October 2014.46

These policies were issued by AGLIC to Griffith Laboratories, Inc., and Plaintiffs

again contend that no relevant Griffith subsidiary, nor Sterigenics, nor Sotera were

40
   Id. ¶¶ 122–23
41
   Id. ¶¶ 129–30.
42
   Id. ¶ 132.
43
   Id.
44
   Id. ¶¶ 133–35.
45
   Id. ¶¶ 140–41.
46
   Id. ¶ 143.
                                           7
named insureds.47 A series of pollution exclusions were included in these successive

policies, too.48

           B. The Defendant Insurers’ Policies

       The details of the Defendant Insurers’ policies are similarly inessential to

resolution of Defendants’ motions. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ primary position is that

coverage is not available to Sterigenics and Sotera under any of its policies in the

first place, so it need not seek contribution from any of the Defendant Insurers.49

Plaintiffs brought the Defendant Insurers into this action only as a means to seek

alternative relief.50

       For present purposes, it is enough to say that each Defendant Insurer issued

policies that Plaintiffs believe Sotera and Sterigenics “may contend are implicated

by the Underlying EtO Lawsuits.”51 As with many of the Zurich-issued policies,

most of the Defendant Insurers’ policies identified in the Amended Complaint

predate the 1999 sale of Griffith Micro Science International, Inc.52 Accordingly,

the extent to which Sterigenics and Sotera can obtain coverage under their

predecessors’ policies is relevant to both of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief.

47
   Id. ¶¶ 143–46.
48
   Id. ¶¶ 151–55.
49
   Id. ¶¶ 186-87.
50
   Id.
51
   Id. ¶¶ 157–63.
52
   Id.
                                            8
III.   The Litigation in Illinois

       The core of Defendants’ motions is the fact that other lawsuits regarding

insurance coverage for the EtO Litigation are already pending. Defendants identify

three other actions that purportedly address issues Plaintiffs now seek to litigate here:

(1) the “National Union Litigation;” (2) the “Wassau Litigation;” and (3) the

“Griffith Litigation.”

           A. The National Union Litigation

       In August 2021, Sterigenics filed suit against National Union Fire Insurance

Company (“National Union”) in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois.53 That suit sought coverage for losses related to the EtO

Litigation under policies issued to Sterigenics’s predecessor.54 In November 2021,

Griffith filed an action in the same court that likewise sought coverage for the EtO

Litigation from National Union.55

       An August 2022 decision in those related cases addressed National Union’s

duty to defend Griffith and Sterigenics.56 Applying Illinois law, the court found that

Sterigenics was a successor to a Griffith subsidiary, which “raise[d] at least the

53
   See Aff. of Bradley Dlatt in Supp. of Def. Griffith Foods International Inc.’s Mot. (“Dlatt Aff.”),
Ex. 9 (D.I. 101).
54
   Id. ¶ 2.
55
   See Dlatt Aff., Ex. 10.
56
   Sterigenics, U.S., LLC v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 619 F. Supp. 3d 852
(N.D. Ill. 2022).
                                                  9
‘possibility’ that Sterigenics is covered as a ‘named insured.’”57 The court also

expressed doubt as to the applicability of the relevant pollution exclusion.58

Accordingly, the court found National Union had a duty to defend both Griffith and

Sterigenics, though it did not rule on National Union’s indemnity obligations.59

           B. The Wausau Litigation

       The next EtO-related coverage dispute was the Wausau Litigation. There, in

November 2022, Employers Insurance of Wausau (“Wausau”) filed suit against

Griffith in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.60 Wausau sought a declaratory

judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Griffith with regard to the EtO

Litigation.61 Plaintiffs originally named Wausau as an additional defendant in this

matter but have since dropped Wausau as a named defendant.62

           C. The Griffith Litigation

       Most pertinent to this matter, Griffith filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook

County, Illinois on January 25, 2023.63 There, Griffith sought coverage for the EtO

Litigation from Zurich, eight of the ten Defendant Insurers named in this action,64

57
   Id. at 861 (quoting Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Microplastics, Inc., 622 F.3d 806, 816 (7th Cir.
2010)).
58
   Id. at 862–64.
59
   Id. at 869.
60
   See Dlatt Aff., Ex. 12.
61
   Id. ¶ 6.
62
   Compare Compl. ¶ 19 (D.I. 1), with Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15–33.
63
   See Dlatt Aff., Ex. 2.
64
    The two Defendant Insurers in this action not named in the Griffith Litigation are National
Union and Sentry Insurance Company. Compare Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18-29, with Dlatt Aff., Ex. 3
                                               10
and others.65 In the Griffith Litigation, Griffith identified many of the same Zurich-

Griffith Policies listed in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.66 In May 2023, after

Plaintiffs’ Complaint in this action was filed, Sterigenics and Sotera moved to

intervene in the Griffith Litigation, seeking coverage based on their purported status

as a successor to Griffith’s subsidiary.67 On August 23, 2023, the Griffith Litigation

and the Wausau Litigation were consolidated.68

                              PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint on February 27, 2023.69

They then filed an Amended Complaint on June 14, 2023.70 On June 29, 2023,

Griffith moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint or stay this matter.71 The

next day, Chubb, Federal, Oakwood, and Central jointly moved for the same relief.72

Also on June 30, 2023, Sterigenics and Sotera filed a similar motion.73 Plaintiffs’

¶¶ 7–17. Both the Amended Complaint here and the amended complaint in the Griffith Litigation
include as defendants yet-unidentified insurers that may become known. Am. Compl. ¶ 32; Dlatt
Aff., Ex. 3 ¶ 18.
65
   Dlatt Aff., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 7–17.
66
   Compare Am. Compl. ¶¶ 105, 121, 132, 143, with Dlatt Aff., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 46, 67.
67
   Dlatt Aff., Ex. 6.
68
   Dlatt Aff., Ex. 18.
69
   Compl.
70
   Am. Compl.
71
   Def. Griffith International Inc.’s Mot. to Dismiss or Stay (“Griffith’s Op. Br.”) (D.I. 101).
72
   Defs. Chubb Custom Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, Oakwood Insurance
Company, and Central National Insurance Company’s Mot. to Dismiss or Stay (“Chubb’s Op.
Br.”) (D.I. 103).
73
   Defs. Sterigenics U.S., LLC and Sotera Health LLC’s Mot. to Dismiss or Stay (“Sterigenics’s
Op. Br.”) (D.I. 104).
                                              11
submitted an Answering Brief in response to the three motions on August 11, 2023.74

Defendants filed their respective replies on August 31 and September 1, 2023.75 The

Court heard oral argument on October 24, 2023, and reserved decision.76

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

       Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(3) permits a defendant to move to dismiss or

stay an action based on improper venue.77 Motions to stay in favor of litigation

elsewhere are not granted as a matter of right;78 instead, the decision “rests within

the sound discretion of the trial court.”79 While the burden of establishing a basis

for relief lies with the defendant,80 the Court “is not shackled to the plaintiff’s

complaint and is permitted to consider extrinsic evidence from the outset.”81

       The burden the defendant must carry depends on the context of the action. A

typical forum non conveniens motion is reviewed against the familiar Cryo-Maid82

74
   Pls.’ Omnibus Br. in Resp. to Mots. to Dismiss or Stay (“Pls.’ Opp’n Br.”) (D.I. 138).
75
   Def. Griffith Foods International Inc.’s Reply in Supp. of its Mot. to Dismiss or Stay (“Griffith’s
Reply Br.”) (D.I. 151); Defs. Sterigenics U.S. LLC and Sotera Health LLC’s Reply Br. in Supp.
of their Mot. to Dismiss or Stay (“Sterigenics’s Reply Br.”) (D.I. 152); Chubb Defs.’ Reply Br. in
Supp. of their Mot. to Dismiss or Stay (“Chubb’s Reply Br.”) (D.I. 153).
76
   Judicial Action Form (D.I. 170).
77
   Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(3). See also Ent. Data Oracle, Inc. v. iSpot.tv, Inc., 2022 WL 17481944,
at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 7, 2022).
78
    McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Eng’g Co., 263 A.2d 281, 283 (Del.
1970).
79
   CVR Refin., LP v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2021 WL 3523925, at *7 (Del. Super. Aug. 11, 2021)
(citing BP Oil Supply Co. v. Conoco Phillips Co., 2010 WL 702382, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 25,
2010)).
80
   See CVR Refin., 2021 WL 3523925, at *7.
81
    Sperling & Slater v. SilkRoad, Inc., 2022 WL 16910563, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 14, 2022)
(quoting Loveman v. Nusmile, Inc., 2009 WL 847655, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 31, 2009)).
82
   Gen. Foods Corp. v. Cryo-Maid, Inc., 198 A.2d 681, 684 (Del. 1964).
                                                 12
factors.83 But where a related action filed in another jurisdiction predates the

Delaware action, the McWane84 factors apply.85 In that setting, if there is (1) “a prior

action pending elsewhere; (2) in a court capable of doing prompt and complete

justice; (3) involving the same parties and the same issues[,]” then “McWane and its

progeny establish a strong preference for the litigation of a dispute in the forum in

which the first action was filed.”86

                                        ANALYSIS

     I.   Each McWane factor is satisfied, and therefore, Defendants’ motions to
          stay this action are GRANTED.

          In light of the Griffith Litigation, Defendants’ motions will be viewed under

the less-demanding McWane framework.                 Defendants carry their burden of

establishing all three prongs. Accordingly, a stay of this action until the Griffith

Litigation is resolved is warranted.

83
   Those factors are:
        (1) the relative ease of access to proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process
        for witnesses; (3) the possibility of the view of the premises, if appropriate; (4) all
        other practical problems that would make the trial of the case easy, expeditious and
        inexpensive; (5) whether or not the controversy is dependent upon the application
        of Delaware law which the courts of this State more properly should decide than
        those of another jurisdiction; and (6) the pendency or nonpendency of a similar
        action in another jurisdiction.
Sperling, 2022 WL 16910563, at *2 (quoting Gramercy Emerging Mkts. Fund v. Allied Irish
Banks, P.L.C., 173 A.3d 1033, 1036–37 (Del. 2017)).
84
   McWane, 263 A.2d at 283.
85
   Sperling, 2022 WL 16910563, at *2 (citing GXP Cap., LLC v. Argonaut Mfg. Servs., Inc., 234
A.3d 1186, 1194 (Del. Super. 2020)).
86
   Id. (citations omitted).
                                              13
           A. The Griffith Litigation is a first-filed action.

       The first prong—whether the Griffith Litigation was filed before this action—

is straightforward in this instance. Plaintiffs do not contend this was a “race to the

courthouse” that might suggest the actions should be deemed contemporaneously

filed.87 Rather, Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed a full month after the Griffith

Litigation commenced.88 While there is no bright-line rule for when two actions

should be considered contemporaneously filed,89 the month-long separation here

precludes serious debate on this point.90 The first prong is therefore established.

           B. The Illinois courts are capable of doing prompt and
              complete justice.

       Whether the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois is capable of doing prompt

and complete justice requires only slightly more analysis. At the outset, the Court

notes that the Illinois state courts are well-acquainted with the deluge of litigation

flowing from the Willowbrook plants’ EtO pollution. Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief

does little to directly address this prong. Instead, Plaintiffs incorporate arguments

pertaining to the third prong and color them as addressing whether the Illinois courts

87
   See CVR Refin., 2021 WL 3523925, at *8.
88
   After the Griffith Litigation and Wausau Litigation were consolidated, the relevant first-filing
date was arguably moved back to November 2, 2022—i.e., the date the Wausau Litigation
commenced. See Griffith’s Reply Br. at 12–13. In light of the Court’s decision applying the
January 2023 filing date, it need not reach that issue.
89
   CVR Refin., 2021 WL 3523925, at *8 (quoting Royal Indem. Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2005
WL 1952933, at *2 n. 18 (Del. Super. July 26, 2005)).
90
   Cf. Bright Data, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2023 WL 5322293, at *3–4 (Del. Super. Aug. 18,
2023) (holding twenty-four-day difference in filing dates was sufficient to implicate McWane).
                                                14
can do “complete” justice without an identity of issues.91 As explained more fully

in the next section, perfect identity of issues is not needed to warrant a stay under

McWane.92 Aside from noting that a court may reject intervenor motions that would

unduly complicate a litigation—a peril that appears foregone in the already complex,

consolidated Griffith and Wausau Litigations—Plaintiffs do not explain why the

Illinois courts would be incapable of deciding coverage issues as to Sterigenics and

Sotera.

       During oral argument, Plaintiffs emphasized that a motion had been filed in

Illinois to replace the judge overseeing the Griffith Litigation. While the availability

of a judge is relevant to this prong,93 this concern is overstated by Plaintiffs. Under

Illinois law, “[e]ach party shall be entitled to one substitution of judge without cause

as a matter of right.”94 Illinois-based counsel present at oral argument represented

that such motions are a routine part of civil practice in that state. Particularly bearing

in mind the comity concerns that undergird McWane,95 the Court will not hold that

91
    See Pls.’ Opp’n Br. at 32–35.
92
    See Kurtin v. KRE, LLC, 2005 WL 1200188, at *4 (Del. Ch. May 16, 2005).
93
     See, e.g., Joyce v. Cuccia, 1996 WL 422339, at *5 (Del. Ch. July 24, 1996) (holding the
“prompt” justice prong was unsatisfied where a pending judicial election would delay the other
litigation).
94
    735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2)(i).
95
    McWane, 263 A.2d at 283.
                                             15
a statutory procedural rule casts doubt upon the Illinois courts’ ability to efficiently

resolve this matter.96 Thus, the second prong is also satisfied.97

               C. The parties and issues are substantially the same.

       The final prong—the overlap of the parties and issues—is the crux of this

dispute. Undeniably, this action is not a perfect mirror image of the Griffith

Litigation. Each suit presently names parties the other does not, and each suit

presently identifies a different insured as the primary focus. Nevertheless, most of

the parties and insurance policies, in addition to the underlying alleged misconduct,

are common across the two actions.

       McWane does not require perfect parallels in competing litigation. Instead,

“the Court has broad discretion to grant a stay where the facts and circumstances

warrant it.”98 It follows that “[c]onsistent with the McWane doctrine generally, the

‘same parties, same issues’ analysis focuses on substance over form.”99

Accordingly, as opposed to perfection, the Court looks for “substantial or functional

96
   See Ritchie v. Huizenga Managers Fund, LLC, 2017 WL 7803924, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 21,
2017) (holding “the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois is capable of ‘doing prompt and
complete justice.’”) (quoting McWane, 263 A.2d at 283).
97
   Further allaying this concern, the Court’s review of the Griffith Litigation’s publicly accessible
docket information suggests a new judge has already been assigned. See Online Case Search,
CLERK OF THE CIR. CT. OF COOK CNTY., https://casesearch.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/
CivilCaseSearchAPI.aspx (last visited Jan. 26, 2024).
98
   Bright Data, Inc., 2023 WL 5322293, at *3 (citing McWane. 263 A.2d at 283).
99
    Kurtin, 2005 WL 1200188, at *4. See also Park G.P., Inc. v. CCSB Fin. Corp., 2020 WL
7706962, at *2 (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 2020) (finding even where “McWane is not a perfect fit, a
McWane-like stay” may be “appropriate” based on “the policy rationale underlying the McWane
factors”).
                                                 16
identity” between the competing actions.100 That substantial identity exists where

the two actions share a “common nucleus of operative fact.”101

       In this analysis, the Court must also consider policy concerns such as “whether

allowing both actions to proceed ‘in tandem would either risk conflicting rulings or

foster an unseemly race to judgment in each forum.’”102 The Cryo-Maid factors

serve as useful guidance in the Court’s exercise of discretion.103 At bottom, the level

of similarity required to grant a stay ebbs and flows with the weight of the practical

considerations favoring one.104

              1. The similarity of the parties

       As for the similarity of the parties, the very slight mismatch between the

groups of insurers named in this action and in the Griffith Litigation does not counsel

against a stay. First, the complaints in both cases list fictitious insurers as defendants

on the explicit basis that additional insurers may need to be added.105 The possibility

of joinder suffices to make the parties “substantially identical.”106 In any event, the

100
    Ent. Data Oracle, Inc, 2022 WL 17481944, at *5 n.53 (quoting Tulum Mgmt. USA LLC v.
Casten, 2015 WL 7456003, at *2 (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 2015)).
101
    Bright Data, Inc., 2023 WL 5322293, at *4 (quoting Tulum Mgmt., 2015 WL 7456003, at *2).
102
    Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Columbus-Hunt Park Dr. BNK Invs., L.L.C., 2009 WL 3335332, at
*7 (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2009) (quoting Xpress Mgmt., Inc. v. Hot Wings Int’l, Inc., 2007 WL
1660741, at *5 (Del. Ch. May 30, 2007)).
103
    See Bright Data, Inc., 2023 WL 5322293, at *6.
104
    Id. at *4 (citing Playtex, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 1989 WL 40913, at *3 (Del. Super. Apr.
25, 1989)).
105
    Am. Compl. ¶ 32; Dlatt Aff., Ex. 3 ¶ 18.
106
    Kurtin, 2005 WL 1200188, at *4 (first citing Macklowe v. Planet Hollywood, Inc., 1994 WL
586835, at *3 (Del. Ch. Oct. 4, 1994); and then citing Corwin v. Silverman, 1999 WL 499456, at
*4 n.13 (Del. Ch. June 30, 1999)).
                                              17
large majority of insurers named in this action are already parties to the Griffith

Litigation.107

       The Court turns now to Sterigenics and Sotera. Both entities have already

moved to join the Griffith Litigation.108 In Kurtin, the Court of Chancery made clear

that “substantial or functional identity” is broader than “a parent/subsidiary or

predecessor/successor relationship.”109 Rather, this requirement “has been met by

‘related entities,’ somewhat overlapping parties, and persons in privity with the

parties.”110 As explained, Sterigenics is Sotera’s subsidiary and is a successor to a

Griffith subsidiary. That connection is how Sterigenics obtained defense coverage

under Griffith’s policies in the National Union Litigation,111 and is why Zurich seeks

resolution of Sotera and Sterigenics rights under the Zurich-Griffith Policies here.112

In sum, Sterigenics, Sotera, and Griffith have closely aligned interests as to the

policy determinations at issue here and are materially related with regard to this

litigation.

              2. The similarity of the issues

       Much of the overlap in issues between this case and the Griffith Litigation is

due to Sterigenics and Sotera’s claims to coverage under policies issued to Griffith.

107
    See supra note 64.
108
    Dlatt Aff., Ex. 6.
109
    Kurtin, 2005 WL 1200188, at *5.
110
    Id. (citations omitted).
111
    National Union, 619 F. Supp. 3d at 861–64.
112
    Pls.’ Opp’n Br. at 13.
                                             18
Thirteen of Plaintiffs’ seventeen stated grounds for denying coverage are based on

interpretations of Zurich policies that could impact Griffith’s rights under those

policies.113 The four remaining grounds assert that Sterigenics and Sotera are not

insureds under the Zurich policies to begin with.114 In other words, the bulk of

Plaintiffs’ requested relief seeks interpretations of the Zurich-Griffith Policies with

regard to Sterigenics and Sotera. Importantly, those interpretations would also bear

on Griffith.

       That circumstance demonstrates the “common nucleus of operative fact” tying

this action to the Griffith Litigation.115 Specifically, Griffith, Sterigenics, and Sotera

engaged in substantially the same alleged misconduct while operating the

Willowbrook plants. Griffith, Sterigenics, and Sotera now seek insurance coverage

for those acts under many of the same insurance policies. That shared core of facts

creates substantial overlap between the issues in this case and the Griffith Litigation.

               3. The relevant policy considerations

       Practical concerns weigh heavily in this analysis.116          First, the risk of

conflicting rulings is clear. If this case were to be litigated contemporaneously with

the Griffith Litigation, this Court and the Illinois court would be simultaneously

113
    Am. Compl. ¶¶ 170–82.
114
    Id. ¶¶ 166–69.
115
    See Bright Data, Inc., 2023 WL 5322293, at *4.
116
    Choice Hotels, 2009 WL 3335332, at *7.
                                             19
tasked with interpreting the Zurich-Griffith Policies. The resulting possibility of

differing conclusions would be ineluctable. An additional risk would be present in

this insurance dispute: the exhaustion of policy limits in one case before the other is

decided. That possibility would incentivize “an unseemly race” to judgment—a

result the McWane court explicitly sought to avoid.117

       The applicable Cryo-Maid factors likewise counsel toward a stay.

Unquestionably, Illinois has a closer relationship to this dispute both legally and

factually. Apart from serving as the state of incorporation or formation for some of

the parties, Delaware has virtually no connection to the underlying events or

insurance policies at issue. Moreover, it would be needlessly taxing for both the

courts and the litigants to pursue these closely related cases in two different

jurisdictions at the same time. “A court may grant a stay on the basis of comity,

efficiency, or common sense[;]”118 here, all three dictate that result.

II.    Defendants’ motions to dismiss this action are DENIED.

       Defendants seek the more extraordinary relief of dismissing Plaintiffs’

Amended Complaint. The Court declines this request. “While ‘[a] party may move

for either a stay or dismissal under McWane, . . . dismissals are rarely granted when

117
   McWane, 263 A.2d at 283.
118
   Ent. Data Oracle, Inc., 2022 WL 17481944, at *4 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
LightLab Imaging, Inc. v. Axsun Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 1764225, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 10, 2012)).
                                             20
the first-filed doctrine is invoked.’”119 That is so because “it is impossible to predict

with certainty the course of earlier-filed litigation in another jurisdiction.”120 Here,

it is possible that questions about Sterigenics and Sotera’s coverage for the EtO

Litigation will outlive the Griffith Litigation. In that event, it would be appropriate

for Plaintiffs to resume this action to settle those lingering issues. A dismissal at this

stage would unnecessarily hinder that process.

       In a departure from the other movants, Griffith also seeks dismissal based

upon the even more burdensome Cryo-Maid factors.121 This argument is similarly

unavailing. Under Cryo-Maid, “dismissal should occur only in rare cases and only

where an overwhelming hardship has been shown.”122 Griffith’s argument falls well

short of that demanding standard. In brief, Griffith’s arguments pertain to why

Illinois is a more convenient forum than Delaware—not why Delaware is itself a

burdensome forum. That is not enough.123 Griffith—a Delaware corporation—has

119
    Id. at *2 (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Riordan Ltd. v. IVN Consulting, LLC,
2021 WL 2879786, at *4 (Del. Ch. July 9, 2021)).
120
    Id. (quoting Riordan Ltd., 2021 WL 2879786, at *4).
121
    Griffith’s Op. Br. at 24–32.
122
    Petit v. Tri-State Wholesale Flooring, LLCO, 2023 WL 4144751, at *4 (Del. Super. June 22,
2023).
123
    See Mar-Land Indus. Contrs., Inc. v. Caribbean Petro. Refin., L.P., 777 A.2d 774, 778 (Del.
2001) (“It is insufficient . . . that another court would be a more appropriate forum.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ison v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 729 A.2d 832, 838 (Del.
1999)).
                                               21
not shown that it will suffer a “manifest hardship” by being made to litigate in

Delaware.124 Thus, a dismissal under Cryo-Maid is unwarranted.

                                         CONCLUSION

         In conclusion, Defendants’ Motions to Stay or Dismiss are GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

124
      Id. (quoting Ison, 729 A.2d at 842).
                                             22