Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant-appellant Seth Kinderman was convicted by jury for the murder of Jakeith Latham. Eventually, he pled guilty to second-degree murder, attempted robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to a joint recommendation of thirty years of Level V incarceration. A few months later, Kinderman sought to withdraw his guilty plea. He claimed his plea counsel failed to advise him of the specific charges in the plea agreement and failed to conduct a mitigation investigation for use during plea negotiations. The superior court denied the plea withdrawal motion and sentenced Kinderman to thirty-seven years of Level V incarceration. Kinderman argued on appeal that the superior court erred in denying the motion to withdraw his plea because he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into the plea agreement, and the plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the Delaware Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the superior court’s judgment: Kinderman did not show a “fair and just reason” to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Kinderman v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The corporate charter of a bank holding company capped at 10% the stock that could be voted by a “person” in any stockholder vote. During a proxy contest for three seats of a staggered board, the CCSB board of directors instructed the inspector of elections not to count 37,175 shares voted in favor of a dissident slate of directors. According to the board, the 37,175 shares exceeded the 10% voting limitation because certain stockholders were acting in concert with each other. If the votes had been counted, the dissident slate of directors would have been elected. The CCSB corporate charter also provided that the board’s “acting in concert” determination, if made in good faith and on information reasonably available, “shall be conclusive and binding on the Corporation and its stockholders.” In a summary proceeding brought by the plaintiffs, the Court of Chancery found: (1) the “conclusive and binding” charter provision invalid under Delaware corporate law; (2) the board’s instruction to the inspector of elections invalid because the individuals identified by the board were not acting in concert; and (3) the board’s election interference did not withstand enhanced scrutiny review. The court also awarded the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees for having conferred a benefit on CCSB. CCSB argued the Court of Chancery erred when it invalidated the charter provision and reinstated the excluded votes. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery: plaintiffs proved that the board breached its duty of loyalty by instructing the inspector of elections to disregard the 37,175 votes. "The charter provision cannot be used to exculpate the CCSB directors from a breach of the duty of loyalty. Further, the court’s legal conclusion and factual findings that the stockholders did not act in concert withstand appellate review." View "CCSB Financial Corp. v. Totta" on Justia Law

Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy were tenants who leased an apartment from Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC. The complaint filed by Seaford Apartment’s insurer, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, alleged that the tenants hit a sprinkler head while they flew a drone inside the apartment. Water sprayed from the damaged sprinkler head and caused damage to the apartment building. Seaford Apartment filed an insurance claim with Donegal, who paid $77,704.06 to repair the water damage. Donegal then brought this action against the tenants through subrogation and alleged that the tenants were negligent and breached the property’s rules and regulations. Donegal sought to recover the repair costs from the tenants. Under the "Sutton" rule, landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. In this case, a Delaware superior court ruled in the tenants’ favor at summary judgment that the Sutton rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages. To this the Delaware Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. View "Donegal Mutual Insurance Company v. Thangavel" on Justia Law