Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Guaranteed Rate, Inc., a mortgage lender, purchased two types of insurance policies from ACE American Insurance Company: management liability and professional liability. Guaranteed Rate sought coverage under the policies for an investigation and eventual settlement of claims brought by the federal government under the False Claims Act. ACE denied coverage under both policies. According to ACE, the Professional Liability Policy expressly excluded False Claims Act charges. ACE also contended that the False Claims Act charges arose from Guaranteed Rate’s professional services, which were excluded under the Management Liability Policy. Only the Management Liability Policy was at issue in this appeal. In Guaranteed Rate’s suit against ACE, a Delaware superior court held that the False Claims Act investigation and settlement did not arise out of Guaranteed Rate’s professional services. Instead, it arose out of false certifications made to the government. Thus, the Management Liability Policy covered the loss. To this, the Delaware Supreme Court agreed with the superior court. View "ACE American Insurance Company v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent-appellant Michael Killen appealed a Family Court order awarding alimony to his ex-wife, Candice Alben, and directing Killen to maintain a pre-existing life insurance policy during the alimony period with Alben as the sole beneficiary. Killen challenged aspects of both rulings on appeal. With respect to the alimony award, Killen argued the Family Court designated the incorrect date for his payment obligations to begin. The parties continued to reside in the marital residence after their divorce and through the date of trial. Before the matter was submitted, the parties agreed to sell the home and to divide the proceeds at the court’s direction. The court’s order directed the parties to continue to split household expenses while they resided together and required Killen to begin making alimony payments upon the residence’s sale. Killen argues that his alimony obligations instead should commence on the divorce date. With respect to the insurance policy, Killen argues the Family Court directed the policy’s continued maintenance based on an inadequate record: the Family Court ordered the policy’s maintenance sua sponte. Regarding Killen's first contention, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded the Family Court did not abuse its discretion. On the other hand, the Family Court did not have a sufficient factual record to order Killen to maintain the policy with Alben as the sole beneficiary. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Killen v. Alben" on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants and cross-appellees, Gregory Holifield (“Holifield”) and GH Blue Holdings, LLC (“Blue”), appealed a Court of Chancery memorandum opinion in favor of plaintiff- appellee and cross-appellant, XRI Investment Holdings LLC (“XRI”). The issue this case presented was whether Holifield validly transferred his limited liability membership units in XRI to Blue on June 6, 2018. The resolution of that issue bore on the ultimate dispute between the parties (not at issue here) on whether XRI validly delivered to Holifield a strict foreclosure notice purporting to foreclose on the XRI membership units, or whether such notice was incorrectly delivered to him because Blue was, in fact, the owner of the units following the transfer. Following a one-day trial, the Court of Chancery determined that the transfer of the units from Holifield to Blue was invalid because it was not a permitted transfer under XRI’s limited liability company agreement, which provided that noncompliant transfers of XRI interests were “void.” The trial court, in interpreting the Delaware Supreme Court's holding in CompoSecure, L.L.C. v. CardUX, LLC, 206 A.3d 807 (Del. 2018), held that the use of the word “void” in XRI’s LLC agreement rendered the transfer incurably void, such that affirmative defenses did not apply. Despite this holding, the trial court, in dicta, further found that XRI had acquiesced in the transfer. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Court of Chancery’s judgment with respect to the Blue Transfer, but reversed the judgment insofar as it precluded XRI’s recovery for breach of contract damages and recoupment of legal expenses advanced to Holifield. The Court held that the trial court’s finding of acquiescence as to only one of the alleged breaches did not bar either remedy, and the Court remanded the case for the trial court to make further determinations. View "Holifield v. XRI Investment Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

In a previous action between these parties, the Delaware Supreme Court addressed whether the exclusive-remedies provision in the workers’ compensation act precluded an injured employee from pursuing recovery from an uninsured motorist policy. After the Court held that the exclusive-remedies provision did not apply, the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought a declaratory judgment that they were permitted to assert a lien against any recovery the employee might obtain for injuries already compensated under the workers’ compensation act. The employee and the uninsured motorist insurer contended that any such lien was barred by statute, relying on the Court’s decision in Simendinger v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 74 A.3d 609 (Del. 2013). The superior court followed that binding precedent as it was required to do and dismissed the declaratory judgment claim. After review however, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded Simendinger was decided in error. The Court therefore reversed the superior court’s decision and held that the workers’ compensation act expressly allowed the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier to assert a subrogation lien against benefits paid to the employee under the employer’s uninsured motorist policy. View "Horizon Services, Inc. v. Henry" on Justia Law

In 2019, Tyrese Burroughs was convicted of felony drug dealing. As one consequence of that conviction, Burroughs was, from then on, prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition. According to an affidavit of probable cause, on November 25, 2020, police caught Burroughs engaging in a hand-to-hand drug transaction while in possession of a “Smith and Wesson Walther .380 firearm loaded with seven live rounds.” Burroughs was arrested and charged with six felonies, relevant here: possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, possession of ammunition by a person prohibited, two counts of drug dealing, carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Together, these charges carried a minimum-mandatory of eight years and a statutory maximum of 77 years in prison. Burroughs filed a “Motion for Modification of Bail,” in which he requested, “[d]ue to his inability to post bail, . . . that his bail be converted to an unsecured or lower secured amount.” The State argued his financial conditions of release should be maintained because, in its view, there was strong evidence supporting his conviction and ample facts demonstrating that he posed a serious safety risk to the public. Burroughs filed a “Motion for Review of Commissioner’s Order,” arguing that the Commissioner erred by failing to test his motion under the strict-scrutiny standard of review on the grounds that he either fell into a suspect class by virtue of his indigency or that his pretrial detention deprived him of his fundamental liberty right under substantive-due-process principles. If the Commissioner had properly conducted a strict-scrutiny review, Burroughs contended, then the State would have had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that “no other non-monetary conditions of release [could] accomplish” its “compelling interest in preventing crime.” The Delaware Supreme Court was asked to decide whether, in light of Delaware's constitutional right to bail, it was permissible to attach unaffordable financial conditions to a dangerous defendant’s pretrial release on bail and, if it was, what procedural protections had to be observed when such bail is considered. The Court responded: (1) strict scrutiny, answering in the affirmative; and (2) the determination to set cash bail had to be supported by clear and convincing evidence that: the defendant is a flight risk or poses a substantial risk to the community and nonmonetary conditions of release would not alleviate that risk. Because these answers were consistent with, and yielded the same result as, the Superior Court’s decision on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burroughs v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court. The question arose in connection with a toxic tort class action in the federal district court for the District of Delaware that was appealed to the Third Circuit. Delaware resident Catherine Baker filed suit individually and on behalf of fellow residents who lived near Atlas Point, a chemical plant that regularly used and emitted ethylene oxide, a dangerous chemical. The question asked whether an increased risk of illness, without present manifestation of a physical harm, was a cognizable injury under Delaware law. Put another way: did an increased risk of harm only constitute a cognizable injury once it manifested in a physical disease? To this, the Supreme Court answered: an increased risk of illness without present manifestation of a physical harm is not a cognizable injury under Delaware law. View "Baker v. Croda Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant City of Newark sought review of a superior court order resolving appellees’ contractual indemnification obligations. The City sought a declaration from the superior court that appellees breached a settlement agreement between the parties and, under the terms of that settlement agreement, appellees had to indemnify the City for all its fees and costs associated with a 2019 subpoena and a separate declaratory judgment action appellees filed in 2019. The superior court held that appellees had to indemnify the City for the subpoena, but not the 2019 action. On appeal, the City contended the settlement agreement’s plain language obligated appellees to indemnify the City for the 2019 action, and the superior court erred in concluding otherwise. The indemnification provision at issue broadly required appellees to indemnify the City for any fees and costs it incurred in any proceeding related to appellees’ separate litigation against a third party in Pennsylvania. Appellees filed the 2019 action to clarify the City's obligation to cooperate with, and provide discovery in, that Pennsylvania litigation. In its summary judgment decision, the superior court denied the City's indemnification claim without expressly addressing whether the 2019 action was “related to” the Pennsylvania litigation. Because the City was entitled to indemnification under the plain terms of the parties' agreement, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the superior court's decision. View "City of Newark v. Durkin, et al." on Justia Law

The statute at issue in this appeal, 19 Del. C. § 2322F, provided a mechanism for employers and their workers’ compensation carriers to challenge proposed or provided health care services relating to compensable work injuries. An employer sought review of a superior court opinion reversing a decision by the Industrial Accident Board (the “IAB” or “Board”) regarding the reasonableness of a prescribed course of treatment. The IAB initially dismissed this case as moot, but the superior court reversed and remanded that decision in 2019. On remand, the IAB held that the claimant-employee’s ongoing narcotics treatment after June 2017 was unreasonable, unnecessary, and therefore not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The superior court then reversed the IAB again, holding there was no justiciable issue before the Board because the claimant employee had not submitted any medical claims to his employer for ongoing treatment. The employer argued the superior court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the IAB could not consider the compensability of an employee’s ongoing narcotics treatment until the employee submitted invoices for payment to the employer and the employer disputed those invoices in the statutory review process. Because the superior court incorrectly interpreted 19 Del. C. § 2322F with respect to the justiciability of the employer’s petition, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s decision, vacated the attorneys’ fees award, and reinstated the IAB’s determination. View "This and That Services Co. Inc. v. Nieves" on Justia Law

The issue in this appeal was the prosecution’s use of Khalif Watson’s prior felony convictions during cross-examination and in closing argument. The admissibility of the convictions was not at issue. Instead, Watson contended his conviction on weapons and resisting-arrest charges could not stand because the prosecutor asked him questions about his prior convictions that he had already answered on direct examination and then argued those convictions showed his propensity to possess weapons. Both of those tactics, appellant argued, were not only objectionable (though the appellant did not object in real time), but also amounted to prosecutorial misconduct so clearly prejudicial to his substantial rights that the Delaware Supreme Court should reverse his convictions. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed. “The questions the prosecutor asked on cross-examination, while arguably objectionable as cumulative, did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. And even if we were to accept Watson’s characterization of the prosecution’s use of his prior convictions, he has failed to persuade us that the ensuing error was so clearly prejudicial of his rights as to compromise the fairness and integrity of his trial.” View "Watson v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Diandre Willis appealed his conviction following an 18-count indictment for rape, home invasion, kidnapping, intimidation, terroristic threatening, bribery, malicious interference of emergency communications, and breaching the conditions of bond and release. A jury found Willis guilty as to 17 of the 18 charges after the State nolle prossed one count of Kidnapping First Degree. Willis raised one issue on appeal: his constitutional right to due process was violated when the trial judge failed to recuse himself from the trial where that judge previously had signed and approved a search warrant at an earlier stage of the investigation. With respect to this sole issue on appeal, both sides agreed that there were no facts in dispute. The Delaware Supreme Court concluded the superior court judge did not err in determining that his recusal was not required. Therefore, the superior court's judgment was affirmed. View "Willis v. Delaware" on Justia Law