Groome Industrial Service Group, LLC v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: 232, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GROOME INDUSTRIAL SERVICE § GROUP, LLC, § No. 232, 2025 § Defendant Below, § Court Below–Superior Court Appellant, § of the State of Delaware § v. § C.A. No. K24C-02-032 § KRAFT HEINZ FOODS § COMPANY, UNDERWRITERS AT § AXA XL, LLOYD’S SYNDICATE § NO. 2003 XLC, HISCOX § SYNDICATES, LLOYD’S § SYNDICATE NO .0033 HIS, MS § AMLIN UNDERWRITING LTD., § LLOYD’S SYNDICATE NO. 2001 § AML, TALBOT UNDERWRITING § LTD., LLOYD’S SYNDICATE NO. § 1183 TAL, HDI GLOBAL § SPECIALTY SE, LIRMA H3808, § ALWEN HOUGH JOHNSON LTD., § NORTH AMERICAN CAPACITY § INSURANCE COMPANY, § § Plaintiffs Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: May 27, 2025 Decided: June 9, 2025

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

ORDER After consideration of the notice of appeal from an interlocutory order and its

exhibits, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Kraft Heinz Foods Company (“Kraft”) is a food and beverage company

that stores fructose in silos at its Dover, Delaware manufacturing facility. By way

of a purchase order dated July 16, 2021 (the “Purchase Order” or “PO”), Kraft hired

Groome Industrial Service Group, LLC (“Groome”) to clean two silos at the Dover

facility. The Purchase Order incorporates by reference Kraft’s “Standard Terms and

Conditions of Purchase,” one of which provides that “[t]he parties waive their right

to a jury trial in any action or proceeding arising out of or related to the PO or Order”

(the “Jury Trial Waiver”).1 In February 2024, Kraft and its insurers (together, the

“Plaintiffs”) sued Groome in the Superior Court, claiming that Groome’s allegedly

negligent cleaning of the Dover silos led to the costly recall of several of Kraft’s

products.

(2) Groome moved for a jury trial under Superior Court Civil Rule 38,

arguing that the Jury Trial Waiver was unenforceable under Delaware law. The

Plaintiffs opposed the motion. On April 25, 2025, the Superior Court denied the

motion in a bench ruling (the “Bench Ruling”). Groome thereafter asked the

Superior Court to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Bench Ruling under Supreme

Court Rule 42. The Plaintiffs opposed the application.

1 Compl., Ex. B at ¶ 11. 2 (3) On May 21, 2025, the Superior Court denied the application for

certification.2 As an initial matter, the court concluded that Groome’s application

should be denied because the Bench Ruling did not decide an issue of material

importance that merits appellate review before a final judgment—a threshold

consideration under Rule 42.3 To the contrary, the Superior Court observed that the

Bench Ruling did not relate to the merits of the parties’ dispute. The court

nevertheless considered Groome’s assertion that certification was appropriate under

Rule 42(b)(iii) because interlocutory review “may serve considerations of justice by

reviewing the denial of a constitutionally protected judicial process.”4 Finding this

claim to be conclusory, the court determined that it did not weigh in favor of

certification. Finally, the Superior Court concluded that “disrupting the flow of

litigation at this late state of the process—with a trial scheduled this summer—would

be inefficient and would vitiate the orderly flow of the litigation.”5

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

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

sound discretion of the Court.6 Exercising our discretion and giving due weight to

2 Kraft Heinz Food Co. v. Groome Indus. Serv. Grp., LLC, 2025 WL 1455800 (Del. Super. Ct. May 21, 2025). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(i) (“No interlocutory appeal will be certified by the trial court or accepted by this Court unless the order of the trial court decides a substantial issue of material importance that merits appellate review before a final judgment.”). 4 Appl. for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal at 2. 5 Kraft Heinz Food Co., 2025 WL 1455800, at *3. 6 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 3 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

Bench Ruling do not exist,7 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not

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

appeal on the eve of trial.8

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

REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

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