United Services Automobile Association v. Spine Care Delaware, LLC ( 2020 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
UNITED SERVICES §
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, §
USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY §
COMPANY, USAA CASUALTY §
INSURANCE COMPANY, and §
GARRISON PROPERTY AND §
CASUALTY INSURANCE §
COMPANY, §
§ No. 325, 2020
Defendants Below, §
Appellants, § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. N18C-01-253
SPINE CARE DELAWARE, LLC, §
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: September 24, 2020
Decided: October 5, 2020
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and its
exhibits, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Plaintiff Spine Care Delaware, LLC (“Spine Care”) filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court on behalf of itself and all others similarly situation
against United Services Automobile Association, USAA General Indemnity
Company, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, and Garrison Property and Casualty
Insurance Company (collectively, the “Defendants”). Spine Care’s amended
complaint asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, breaches of contracts, bad
faith breaches of contract, and violations of 21 Del. C. §§ 2118 and 2118B. In
support of its claims, Spine Care alleges that the Defendants have (i) failed to pay
interest as required by statute on overdue Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) claims,
(ii) failed to conclude an investigation within the statutory thirty-day deadline and
subsequently denied payment on the grounds that PIP limits had been exhausted, and
(iii) delayed and underpaid other claims covered under PIP. Spine Care filed a
motion for class certification, contending that the Defendants had failed to pay
statutory interest under 21 Del. C. § 2118B on overdue PIP-related expenses to Spine
Care and others in its class. After briefing and oral argument, the Superior Court
certified a plaintiff class for the statutory interest claims on June 18, 2020 (“the
Opinion”).1 In the course of doing so, the Superior Court found that Spine Care was
a member of the class that it sought to certify and represent.2 The Superior Court
denied the Defendants’ motion for reargument on August 25, 2020.3
1
Spine Care Delaware, LLC v. United States [sic] Auto. Ass’n, 2020 WL 3564706 (Del. Super.
Ct. June 18, 2020).
2
Id. at *6.
3
Spine Care Delaware, LLC v. United States [sic] Auto. Ass’n, 2020 WL 5033049 (Del. Super.
Ct. Aug. 25, 2020).
2
(2) On September 4, 2020, the Defendants asked the Superior Court to
certify an interlocutory appeal from the Opinion under Rule 42. The Defendants
maintained that the Opinion decided a substantial issue of material importance,4
namely the viability of class certification. The Defendants also argued that the
following Rule 42(b)(iii) factors weighed in favor of granting interlocutory review:
the Opinion involves a question of law resolved for the first time in Delaware; 5 the
question of law relates to the construction of a statute, which has not been, but should
be, settled by this Court prior to the entry of a final order;6 considerations of justice
warrant interlocutory review;7 and interlocutory review may terminate the litigation.8
Spine Care opposed the application.
(3) On September 16, 2020, the Superior Court denied the Defendants’
application for certification of an interlocutory appeal. Although the Superior Court
agreed with the Defendants that the Opinion involved a substantial issue of material
importance, it concluded that the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors did not weigh in favor of
certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Superior Court found that, contrary to
the Defendants’ contentions, the Opinion neither addressed a question of first
4
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(i).
5
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(A).
6
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(C).
7
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(H).
8
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(G).
3
impression in Delaware nor involved a novel interpretation of 21 Del. C. § 2118 in
assessing Spine Care’s standing. The Superior Court also noted that interlocutory
review would not result in the termination of the underlying litigation because Spine
Care had asserted individual, in addition to class-wide, claims against the
Defendants. Finding that, at best, the balancing of the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors was
uncertain, the Superior Court refused to certify the interlocutory appeal.9 We agree
with the Superior Court’s conclusion.
(4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of the Court.10 Giving due weight to the Superior Court’s analysis and in
the exercise of our discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under
Supreme Court Rule 42(b). Exceptional circumstances that would merit
interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s decision do not exist in this case,11
interlocutory review would not terminate the litigation,12 and the potential benefits
of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable
costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.13
9
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
10
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
11
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii).
12
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(G).
13
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is
REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
5