National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. FedEx Corp.

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: September 8, 2023
• Docket: 287, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NATIONAL UNION FIRE § INSURANCE COMPANY OF § No. 287, 2023 PITTSBURGH, PA, § § Court Below–Superior Court Plaintiff Below, § of the State of Delaware Appellant, § § C.A. No. N22C-08-488 v. § § FEDEX CORP. and FEDEX § GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, § INC., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: August 17, 2023 Decided: September 8, 2023

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

ORDER

After consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental

notice of interlocutory appeal, and their exhibits, it appears to the Court that:

(1) This appeal concerns a dispute between FedEx Ground Package

System, Inc. (“FedEx Ground”) and its excess insurers regarding insurance coverage

for pre- and post-judgment interest incurred in connection with a $157-million jury

verdict and judgment entered in a New Mexico personal-injury lawsuit (the “New

Mexico Verdict”). On August 30, 2022, one of FedEx Ground’s excess insurers,

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”), filed suit in the Delaware Superior Court (the “Delaware Action”) against FedEx Ground

and FedEx Corp. (together, “FedEx”) seeking a declaratory judgment that National

Union has no obligation to pay post-judgment interest on the New Mexico Verdict.

On September 6, 2022, FedEx Ground filed a separate action in the Pennsylvania

Court of Common Pleas (the “Pennsylvania Action”) alleging breach of contract and

other claims against National Union and two of FedEx Ground’s other excess

insurers, Great American Insurance Company of New York (“GAIC”) and Liberty

Mutual Insurance Europe Limited (“Liberty Mutual”). Shortly thereafter, FedEx

filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Delaware Action. National Union then filed an

amended complaint, adding GAIC and Liberty Mutual as co-defendants in the

Delaware Action.

(2) In the Pennsylvania Action, all three insurers filed preliminary

objections, arguing, among other things, that the Pennsylvania Action should be

dismissed or stayed in deference to the Delaware Action. In the Delaware Action,

FedEx moved to dismiss or stay the proceedings on the grounds of comity or forum

non conveniens in light of the pending and larger-in-scope Pennsylvania Action. On

February 8, 2023, the Pennsylvania court denied the insurers’ preliminary objections

and declined to stay the Pennsylvania Action.1

1 On May 25, 2023, the Pennsylvania court denied the insurers’ motion for reconsideration of its ruling. 2 (3) On July 18, 2023, the Superior Court denied FedEx’s motion to dismiss

the Delaware Action but granted its request to stay the Delaware Action, deferring

to the Pennsylvania Action in the interests of comity and judicial efficiency (the

“Opinion”).2 Observing that the Pennsylvania court had decided—over the insurers’

objections—that the Pennsylvania Action should proceed, the Superior Court

concluded that a stay would conserve judicial resources as well as avoid confusion,

inconsistent rulings, and duplicative litigation costs.3 National Union asked the

Superior Court to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Opinion under Supreme

Court Rule 42. FedEx opposed the application.

(4) On August 16, 2023, the Superior Court denied National Union’s

application.4 As a preliminary matter, the Superior Court disagreed with National

Union’s claim that the Opinion decided a substantial issue of material importance—

a threshold consideration under Rule 425—because it did not relate to the merits of

the case. Nevertheless, the Superior Court analyzed the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors cited

by National Union—specifically, Factors A (the Opinion decided an issue of first

impression in the State), B (the Opinion conflicts with other trial court decisions),

and H (interlocutory review of the Opinion would serve the considerations of

2 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. FedEx Corp., 2023 WL 4623626 (Del. Super. Ct. July 18, 2023) (“FedEx I”). 3 Id. at *8. 4 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. FedEx Corp., 2023 WL 5310443 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 16, 2023) (“FedEx II”). 5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(i). 3 justice)—and concluded that none of them supported the certification of an

interlocutory appeal.

(5) First, the Superior Court found that National Union’s application for

certification mischaracterized the Opinion because the court granted FedEx’s

request for a stay “solely on the grounds of comity,”6 but National Union’s

application cited the court’s forum non conveniens analysis. As it had in the

Opinion, the court emphasized that it had offered its forum non conveniens analysis

only as supplemental commentary in the event that “some issue arises in the

Pennsylvania Action warranting lifting the stay in the [Delaware A]ction.”7 That is,

the decision to stay the Delaware Action was based on comity and judicial-efficiency

principles and did not involve a novel application of the forum non conveniens

doctrine. Second, the Superior Court found that the Opinion does not conflict with

the other trial court decisions cited by National Union because they relate to the

application or misapplication of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Finally, the

Superior Court found that considerations of justice would not be served by

interlocutory review because, among other things, National Union would not suffer

any irreversible prejudice if it were forced to litigate the insurance-coverage dispute

in Pennsylvania as opposed to Delaware. Mindful of Rule 42’s directive that a trial

6 FedEx II at *3. 7 Id. 4 court should refuse to certify an interlocutory appeal if it finds the balance of the

Rule 42(b)(iii) factors to be uncertain,8 the Superior Court denied the application.

(6) 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.9 Exercising our discretion and giving due weight to

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

Opinion do not exist,10 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not

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

appeal.11

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

REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice

8 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 9 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 10 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 11 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 5