Na Aikane O Maui v. Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawai'i

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: February 27, 2026
• Docket: SCPW-26-0000107
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 27-FEB-2026 11:07 AM Dkt. 9 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

NA AIKANE O MAUI; LAHAINA JODO MISSION; LAHAINA YACHT CLUB; and KUSINA ASIAN MARKET LLC, Petitioners,

vs.

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent Court,

and

AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.; and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBER TRIB223061, et al., Respondents. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CASE NOS. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX; 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER DENYING PETITION (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., Circuit Judge Somerville, in place of Devens, J., and Circuit Judge Tomasa, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the petition for writ of mandamus or

alternate relief, filed February 12, 2026, and the record, Rivera v. Cataldo, 153 Hawaiʻi 320, 537 P.3d 1167 (2023), is

distinguishable from this case. There, compensation to

thousands of people for land trust breaches that occurred

between August 21, 1959 and June 30, 1988, was delayed because a

single person erroneously believed that compensation was also

owed to that person. Id. at 323-26, 537 P.3d at 1170-73.

Here, the petition was filed just two days after our

February 10, 2026 opinion in Burnes v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc.,

___ P.3d ___, No. SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2026 WL 370176 (Haw. Feb. 10,

2026), or during the reconsideration period. See Hawaiʻi Rules

of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(a) (2000). The notices of appeal

in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX were filed on January 20

and 21, 2026, respectively, or before this court’s February 10,

2026 opinion in Burnes.

Also, the records on appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-26-

0000045 had not been filed when the petition was filed in this

case. And the records still haven’t been filed.

Petitioners have alternatives to obtain the relief sought

in this petition through normal appellate procedures, which

include expedited resolution of the pending appeals. An

extraordinary writ is unwarranted. See Womble Bond Dickinson

(US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154, 1166

(2023).

2 It is ordered that the petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 27, 2026.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Rowena A. Somerville

/s/ Taryn R. Tomasa