Geronta Funding v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Co.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
§
GERONTA FUNDING, a Delaware §
statutory trust, § No. 103, 2019
§
Defendant-Counterclaim § Court Below—Superior Court
Plaintiff Below, § of the State of Delaware
Appellant, §
§ C.A. No. N18C-04-028
v. §
§
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE §
INSURANCE COMPANY, §
§
Plaintiff-Counterclaim §
Defendant Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 15, 2019
Decided: March 28, 2019
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After considering the notice of appeal and supplemental notice of appeal from
an interlocutory order under Supreme Court Rule 42, it appears to the Court that:
(1) This interlocutory appeal arises from a Superior Court bench ruling and
opinion granting in part and denying in part cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings. As requested by both parties, the Superior Court held that a life insurance
policy issued by the appellee, Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, to a fictitious
individual and later purchased by Geronta Funding on the secondary market was
void ab initio. The Superior Court denied Geronta Funding’s request for rescission
of the insurance policy and a full refund of all paid premiums, finding that rescission
of a void contract is not available under Delaware law. The Superior Court denied
Brighthouse’s request to leave the parties as they were, finding that Brighthouse
might be unjustly enriched if it could keep all of the paid premiums and therefore
restitution might be an appropriate remedy. The Superior Court also found that
further development of the record was necessary to determine if Brighthouse had an
offset claim.
(2) On February 22, 2019, Geronta filed an application for certification of
an interlocutory appeal. Geronta argued that certification was appropriate because,
among other things, the opinion resolved a question of law decided for the first time
in Delaware, the opinion conflicted with decisions of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, and interlocutory review could terminate the litigation.
Brighthouse opposed the application. On March 19, 2019, the Superior Court denied
the application for certification. The Superior Court found that its decision followed
Delaware law, there was no conflict in the decisions of the state courts, the decisions
of the Delaware District Court were distinguishable, and interlocutory review would
not terminate the litigation because even if the insurance policy was rescinded,
Brighthouse’s offset claim had to be resolved.
2
(3) We agree that interlocutory review is not warranted in this case.
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the
Court.1 In the exercise of its 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). The case is not exceptional,2 and the potential benefits
of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable
costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory
appeal is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Justice
1
Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
2
Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii).
3
Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
3