Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. AIU Insurance Co.
This text of Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. AIU Insurance Co. (Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. AIU Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N10C-07-241 MMJ ) AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., ) Defendants. ) )
Submitted: April 9, 2015 Decided: June 15, 2015
Upon Plaintiff Mine Safety Appliances Company’s Exceptions to the March 21, 2015 Opinion of the Special Discovery Master DENIED
ORDER
JOHNSTON, J.
1. On July 11, 2014, Defendant The North River Insurance Company
(“North River”) filed a Motion to Compel Answers and/or to Determine
Sufficiency of Objections and Responses to Requests for Admissions and an
Interrogatory Related Thereto (“RFA Motion”) directed to Plaintiff Mine Safety
Appliances Company (“MSA”). Following full briefing, the Special Discovery
Master (“Special Master”) held oral argument on September 5, 2014. 2. During the September 5, 2014 oral argument, the parties stated that
they would engage in meet and confer discussions to attempt to resolve the RFA
Motion.
3. On February 23, 2015, North River filed a Supplemental Brief in
Support of its RFA Motion, stating that the meet and confer discussions were
unsuccessful and a ruling is needed.
4. In letters dated February 25, 2015, and March 2, 2015, MSA informed
the Court of its intention to file a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment addressing
North River’s Known Loss, Known Risk, Public Policy, Unclean Hands, and
Misrepresentation defenses (“Five Additional Defenses”). MSA stated that the
Five Additional Defenses are the functional equivalent of the expected or intended
provision in the North River policies. Therefore, MSA argued that the Court’s
March 24, 2014 Expected/Intended Opinion renders a great majority of the RFAs
irrelevant. MSA requested that a ruling on North River’s RFA Motion be
postponed until after the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is decided.
5. On March 21, 2015, the Special Master issued a ruling (“March 21,
2015 Ruling”) declining MSA’s request to postpone the ruling and granting North
River’s RFA Motion.
2 6. On March 27, 2015, MSA filed Exceptions to the March 21, 2015
Ruling. In its Exceptions, MSA requests that the Court stay the March 21, 2015
Ruling until the Court decides MSA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
7. In response, North River argues that the Court should enforce the
March 21, 2015 Ruling, compelling MSA to answer the RFA Motion, and deny
MSA’s Exceptions.
8. The Order of Reference to Special Master, dated December 5, 2012,
establishes the Court’s proceedings when a party files an exception to a decision of
the Special Master during the Course of this litigation. The Court reviews de novo
the Special Master’s Ruling.1
9. As to MSA’s Exceptions, MSA states that it is not requesting that the
Court overturn the March 21, 2015 Ruling. Rather, MSA asks the Court to stay
enforcement of the Ruling until after it decides MSA’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment concerning North River’s Five Additional Defenses. MSA
contends that if the Motion is granted, the March 21, 2015 Ruling should be
overturned. Conversely, if the Motion is denied, MSA will comply with the March
21, 2015 Ruling and will answer the discovery.
10. MSA argues that by granting North River’s RFA Motion prior to the
Five Additional Defenses being ruled on by the Court, the Special Master has
1 Trans. ID 48202156. 3 burdened MSA with responding to discovery that may be irrelevant if the Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on the Five Additional Defenses is granted. MSA
suggests that the parties set a new briefing schedule so that the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment may be heard and a decision rendered before June 29, 2015,
the previously-scheduled date for oral argument for Phase I Motions. MSA argues
that setting an expedited schedule will alleviate concerns regarding delay in
resolving the discovery issues.
11. The Court disagrees with MSA’s contentions and finds that the March
21, 2015 Ruling was correct in denying the request for postponement and ordering
MSA to answer North River’s discovery requests. Superior Court Civil Rule
26(b) states in pertinent part: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,
not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or
to the claim or defense of any other party . . . .” 2 The Special Master stated in the
March 21, 2015 Ruling that MSA has failed to show that the Five Additional
Defenses are the functional equivalent of the expected or intended provision in the
North River policies. Rather, the Five Additional Defenses are distinguishable
from the expected or intended provision and are based on different factual, legal,
2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(b)(1). 4 and policy grounds. Accordingly, North River is permitted to seek discovery on
those issues.
12. The Court also agrees with the Special Master that considerations of
timing and efficiency weigh against staying the March 21, 2015 Ruling. MSA
argues that it will be more efficient to rule on the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment before enforcing the March 21, 2015 Ruling because if the Motion is
granted, a large number of RFAs will be irrelevant. However, if the Motion is
denied, MSA will be even further delayed in providing North River with discovery
responses. Further, if the Court stays the March 21, 2015 Ruling, North River may
be denied the opportunity to collect discovery that may refute MSA’s contention
that the Five Additional Defenses are the functional equivalents of the expected or
intended provision.
13. The Court finds that the Special Master carefully considered all issues
raised by the parties. The March 21, 2015 Ruling is consistent with applicable
legal precedent, the Delaware Superior Court Civil Rules, and the Court’s prior
rulings in this case. The Court is not persuaded by any exceptions to the ruling.
Upon de novo review, the Court finds the Special Master’s ruling–granting North
River’s Motion to Compel Answers to Requests for Admissions–to be well
reasoned.
5 THEREFORE, the Special Discovery Master’s March 21, 2015 Ruling is
hereby APPROVED. All exceptions are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary M. Johnston__________ The Honorable Mary M. Johnston
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. AIU Insurance Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mine-safety-appliances-co-v-aiu-insurance-co-delsuperct-2015.