Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1994, the Delaware General Assembly enacted a statute, applicable to both criminal and civil proceedings, that eased the evidentiary burden on the proponent of controlled-substance-testing evidence. The statute, "Subchapter III," allowed for the admission of, and a favorable presumption relating to, written reports from a forensic toxicologist or forensic chemist, without the necessity of their appearance in court, so long as the report complied with certain requirements. After Stephen Hairston was indicted on several criminal offenses, including serious drug offenses, he served a written demand on the State, which, by the unambiguous terms of the statute, required the presence at trial of, among other individuals, the officer who seized and packaged the substances that formed the basis of Hairston’s drug offenses. Upon the State’s pretrial motion in limine, however, the Superior Court, believing that the seizing and packaging officer was unavailable, relieved the State of its obligation to produce him and permitted another officer who was present at the scene of Hairston’s apprehension to appear in the seizing and packaging officer’s stead. The Superior Court’s ruling, according to Hairston, erroneously relieved the State of a mandatory statutory duty and violated Hairston’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Delaware Supreme Court held the Superior Court’s interpretation of the statute in question was erroneous as a matter of law and that, absent the appearance of the witness identified in Hairston’s demand, it was error for the court to admit the forensic chemist’s report and testimony. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Hairston v. Delaware" on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellants Eric Monzo and Dana Spring Monzo purchased a homeowners insurance policy issued by Appellee Nationwide Property & Casualty Co. (“Nationwide”). The policy contained standard exclusions for water damage and earth movement, along with optional water backup coverage. In July 2017, a heavy thunderstorm destroyed a pedestrian bridge and retaining wall located at the Monzos’ residence. A pair of engineering reports prepared after the storm indicated that a combination of water backups from drainage systems, scouring of supporting earth embankments, heavy rain, and tree debris caused the damage. The Monzos filed a claim with Nationwide, seeking coverage under the homeowners insurance policy. Nationwide denied coverage, and the Monzos sued. The court granted summary judgment for Nationwide, holding that the policy’s earth movement and water damage exclusions applied. The Monzos appealed, arguing the Superior Court erred by granting summary judgment too early in the discovery process, misinterpreting the policy, and denying a motion for post-judgment relief. Having reviewed the briefs and record on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court: (1) affirmed the Superior Court’s holding that Nationwide was entitled to summary judgment regarding the collapsed bridge; (2) reversed the Superior Court’s holding that Nationwide was entitled to summary judgment regarding the retaining wall; and (3) affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of the Monzos’ post-judgment motion. View "Monzo v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2014, appellant and cross-appellee LCT Capital, LLC (“LCT”) helped appellee and cross-appellants NGL Energy Partners, LP and NGL Energy Holdings LLC (collectively, “NGL”) acquire TransMontaigne, a refined petroleum products distributor. LCT played an "unusually" valuable role in the transaction. The transaction generated $500 million in value for NGL, more than double the $200 million price that NGL paid to acquire TransMontaigne. NGL’s CEO Mike Krimbill represented on several occasions that LCT would receive an unusually large investment banking fee, but the parties failed to reach an agreement on all of the material terms. After negotiations broke down completely, LCT filed suit seeking compensation for its work under several theories, including quantum meruit and common law fraud. At trial, LCT presented a unitary theory of damages that focused on the value of the services that it provided, measured by the fee that Krimbill proposed for LCT’s work. Nonetheless, the jury verdict sheet had two separate lines for damages awards, one for the quantum meruit claim and another for the fraud claim. The jury found NGL liable for both counts, awarded LCT an amount of quantum meruit damages equal to a standard investment banking fee, and awarded LCT a much larger amount of fraud damages approximately equal to the unusually large fee that Krimbill proposed. Following post-trial briefing, the superior court set aside the jury’s awards and ordered a new trial on damages. LCT and NGL both filed interlocutory appeals of the superior court’s order. On appeal, LCT argued that benefit-of-the-bargain damages were available without an enforceable contract. On cross-appeal, NGL argued the superior court erred by ordering a new trial on damages because the jury’s quantum meruit award fully compensated LCT for its harm. NGL also argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the fraud claim. Finally, NGL argued the superior court provided the jury with erroneous fraudulent misrepresentation jury instructions. After review, the Delaware Supreme Court found LCT was not entitled to benefit-of-the-bargain damages and that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial on quantum meruit damages. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court also held the superior court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial on fraud damages because LCT did not assert any independent damages to support its fraud claim. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the superior court’s judgment. View "LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP" on Justia Law

An excess insurer under a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy sought a declaration from the superior court that coverage under the policy was not available to fund the settlement of two lawsuits: a breach of fiduciary duty action in the Court of Chancery, and a federal securities action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In a series of decisions, the superior court rejected the insurer’s claims and entered judgment in favor of the insureds. Aggrieved, the insurer contended the superior court committed several errors: whether the insurance policy, which insured a Delaware corporation and its directors and officers but which was negotiated and issued in California, should have been interpreted under Delaware law; whether the policy, to the extent that it appeared to cover losses occasioned by one of the insureds’ fraud, was unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of Delaware; whether a policy provision that excluded coverage for fraudulent actions defeats coverage; and whether the superior court properly applied the policy’s allocation provision. Finding no reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Murdock, et al." on Justia Law

Glaxo Group Limited and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “GSK”) owned patents covering Benlysta, a lupus treatment drug. GSK filed a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) claiming a method for treating lupus. Biogen Idec MA Inc. (“Biogen”) held an issued patent covering a similar method for treating lupus. When parties dispute who was first to discover an invention, the PTO declares an interference. Rather than suffer the delay and uncertainty of an interference proceeding, the parties agreed to settle their differences through a patent license and settlement agreement (“Agreement”). GSK ended up with its issued patent. The PTO cancelled Biogen’s patent, and Biogen received upfront and milestone payments and ongoing royalties for Benlysta sales. Under the Agreement GSK agreed to make royalty payments to Biogen until the expiration of the last “Valid Claim” of certain patents, including the lupus treatment patent. The Agreement defined a Valid Claim as an unexpired patent claim that has not, among other things, been “disclaimed” by GSK. GSK paid Biogen royalties on Benlysta sales. After Biogen assigned the Agreement to DRIT LP - an entity that purchased intellectual property royalty streams - GSK filed a statutory disclaimer that disclaimed the patent and all its claims. GSK notified DRIT that there were no longer any Valid Claims under the Agreement and stopped paying royalties on Benlysta sales. DRIT sued GSK in the Superior Court for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for failing to pay royalties under the Agreement. The court dismissed DRIT’s breach of contract claim but allowed the implied covenant claim to go to a jury trial. The jury found for DRIT, and the court awarded damages. On appeal, GSK argued the superior court should have granted it judgment as a matter of law on the implied covenant claim. On cross-appeal, DRIT claimed that, if the Court reversed the jury verdict on the implied covenant claim, it should reverse the superior court’s ruling dismissing the breach of contract claim. The Delaware Supreme Court found the superior court properly dismissed DRIT’s breach of contract claim, but should have granted GSK judgment as a matter of law on the implied covenant claim. Thus, the superior court's judgment was reversed. View "Glaxo Group Limited, et al. v. DRIT LP" on Justia Law

Walter Hines appealed his conviction and sentence for second-degree assault, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony (“PDWDCF”), and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (“EWC”). Hines’s issue on appeal related to an incident that occurred on September 27, 2018. At that time, Hines lived with Valeah Lewis, her mother Juliann Congo, and Lewis’s children D.L. and T.L. Michael Gibbs was Lewis’s ex-boyfriend and was D.L.’s father. As Lewis and Hines were leaving for work, Gibbs and his girlfriend, Putrice Barnes, arrived at the Lewis residence to pick up D.L. After a verbal exchange, Hines and Lewis drove a short way down the street then stopped. Barnes testified that she “flipped the bird” as Lewis drove past. Hines, Lewis, Barnes, and Gibbs all agree that an altercation ensued shortly thereafter, but their accounts differ regarding the key details. Lewis asserted that Gibbs swung a tire iron at Hines, while Hines asserted Gibbs did not take the tire iron from Barnes but instead tried to punch him. Both Hines and Lewis agreed Hines retrieved a baseball bat from the back seat and used it defensively against Gibbs in response to Barnes’s and Gibbs’s aggression. On appeal, Hines claimed the Superior Court committed plain error when it permitted the State’s final cross-examination question about his prior convictions for Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance (“PWID”) and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”). Finding no reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Hines' convictions. View "Hines v. Delaware" on Justia Law

In 1996, two masked and camouflaged men crashed through the glass patio door of Kenneth Warren’s home. Warren was fatally shot in front of his wife and child during the subsequent struggle. Tina Warren, Kenneth’s wife, observed one assailant appeared to have been shot in the shoulder. The investigation went cold until Bridget Phillips, ex-wife of co-defendant Adam Norcross, contacted Delaware State Police in 1999. She explained that Norcross and appellant Ralph Swan had planned to rob a house, but found it occupied. Phillips added that the victim fired a shot and died because he tried to play hero. Police arrested Norcross and Swan in 2000. Both were indicted on three counts of first degree murder; one count of first degree robbery; one count of first degree burlgary; one count of second degree conspiracy; and multiple counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. Swan was ultimately convicted on all charges, for which he was sentenced to death. Swan obtained new counsel and first filed for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 in 2006. He lodged several additional post-conviction motions, including applying for habeas relief. Final memoranda were filed in 2020; on February 21, 2020, the Superior Court denied Swan's motion for postconviction relief. The Delaware Supreme Court concluded, after review of the procedural history of this case, that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Swan's motion for postconviction relief, nor did it err in denying a motion for the Superior Court judge to recuse. Thus, the Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. View "Swan v. Delaware" on Justia Law

United BioSource LLC (“UBC”), a subsidiary of Express Scripts, Inc. (“ESI”) agreed to sell three of UBC’s pharmaceutical research and development businesses to Bracket Holding Corp. (“Bracket”), a holding company formed by Parthenon Capital Partners, LP (“Parthenon”). In August 2013, Bracket and UBC signed a $187 million securities purchase agreement (“SPA”). Except for claims involving deliberate fraud and certain fundamental representations, Bracket agreed to limit its remedy for breach of the SPA’s representations and warranties to an insurance policy (the “R&W Policy”) purchased to cover these claims. After closing, Bracket claimed that ESI and UBC engaged in fraud by inflating the revenue and working capital of one of the divisions of the acquired companies. In an arbitration proceeding Bracket recovered $13 million under the R&W Policy for breach of the SPA’s representations and warranties. Bracket then sued ESI and UBC for fraud in Delaware superior court. A jury awarded Bracket over $82 million. The parties appealed the jury verdict and judgment. After review, the Delaware Supreme Court found one issue dispositive: the SPA provided unambiguously that, except in the case of deliberate fraud and certain fundamental representations, Bracket could only recover up to the R&W Policy’s limits for breaches of the representations and warranties. Over ESI’s objection, however, the superior court instructed the jury that it could find for Bracket not only for deliberate fraud, but also for recklessness. "A deliberate state of mind is a different kettle of fish than a reckless one." The Supreme Court determined the superior court’s erroneous jury instruction was not harmless: it violated a key provision of the SPA and how the parties allocated risk in the transaction. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the superior court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial. View "Express Scripts, Inc. v. Bracket Holdings Corp" on Justia Law

In 2010, Appellants Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC and Meso Scale Technologies, LLC (collectively “Meso”) filed suit in Delaware against Appellee entities Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Roche Diagnostics Corp., Roche Holding Ltd., IGEN LS LLC, Lilli Acquisition Corp., IGEN International, Inc., and Bioveris Corp. (collectively “Roche”), all of which were affiliates or subsidiaries of the F. Hoffmann -- La Roche, Ltd. family of pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies. Meso alleged two counts of breach of contract. Roche prevailed at trial, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in 2014. Then in 2019, Meso brought a new action asking the court to reopen the case, vacate the judgment entered after trial, and order a new trial. Meso alleged that the Vice Chancellor who decided its case four years earlier had an undisclosed disabling conflict, namely, that Roche’s counsel had been simultaneously representing him in an unrelated federal suit challenging the constitutionality of Delaware’s law providing for confidential business arbitration in the Court of Chancery (“Section 349”). In that federal litigation, which ended in 2014, the Chancellor and Vice Chancellors of the Court of Chancery, as the parties responsible for implementing the challenged statute, were nominal defendants. The Court of Chancery denied relief and dismissed the action. Meso appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed dismissal. View "Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GMBH" on Justia Law

In 2011, Dr. Natwarlal Ramani, M.D. performed a colonoscopy on William King. At a follow up visit on April 26, 2011, Dr. Ramani recommended that King return for his next colonoscopy in three to five years. King followed that advice and returned to Dr. Ramani for another colonoscopy five years later, in 2016. The March 2016 colonoscopy could not be completed because a cancerous growth had formed in King’s colon. He died a few months later. In April 2018, the Plaintiffs, Monica King Anderson, the Estate of William King, Stephanie King, Heather Guerke, and Amber Withrow, filed this wrongful death action, claiming that Dr. Ramani was negligent in advising King that he did not need a follow-up colonoscopy until as long as five years after the one done in April 2011. Given King’s medical history, they alleged, the standard of care required Dr. Ramani to advise King to return for his next colonoscopy in three years. The negligent advice, they further alleged, resulted in a delay in the diagnosis and treatment of colon cancer which ultimately led to King’s death. Defendants-appellants, Dr. Ramani, GI Associates of Delaware, P.A., and Advance Endoscopy Center, LLC, moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiffs' action was barred by the statute of limitations. The Superior Court found that the continuous negligent medical treatment doctrine applied to the facts of this case, and held that under that doctrine the statute did not begin to run until March 26, 2016, thus making Plaintiffs' suit timely filed. The Delaware Supreme Court granted certiorari review of the Superior Court's ruling. After review, the Supreme Court the continuous negligent medical treatment doctrine did not apply. The Court rejected Plaintiffs' contention the Court should have adopted a limited time-of-discovery rule in cancer cases. Plaintiffs' constitutional arguments were not ripe unless and until it was determined this case was, in fact, barred by the statute of limitations. "On remand, the Defendants are free to pursue their statute of limitations defense. If they do, the Superior Court should make a factual determination as to when the date of injury occurred and apply § 6856 to that finding accordingly. If the Superior Court determines that the action is barred by [18 Del. C. section 6856], the Plaintiffs may present their constitutional arguments there." View "GI Associates of Delaware v. Anderson" on Justia Law