Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
| Citation | 43 Del.Ch. 388,232 A.2d 101 |
| Parties | Beatrice D. PHILLIPS and John H. Phillips, Jr., Defendants Below, Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Massachusetts, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1967 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Appellee's motion to dismiss appeal.
William Prickett, of Prickett, Ward, Burt & Sanders, Wilmington, for appellee.
Clement C. Wood, of Allmond & Wood, Wilmington, for appellants.
Appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal from an interlocutory order of the Vice Chancellor on the ground that the order is not appealable.
Appeals from an interlocutory order will be allowed only if the order appealed from determines substantial legal issues and establishes rights. Wilmington Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 40 De.Ch. 1, 172 A.2d 63. The motion to dismiss, therefore, raises the question of whether or not the order appealed from decides any substantial legal issue, or is merely an order designed to forward the cause procedurally. American Insurance Co. v. Synvar Corp., Del., 199 A.2d 755.
This litigation arises as a result of a gas explosion in the home of the Phillipses, severely injuring Mrs. Phillips and destroying the home. Ultimately, the Phillipses secured a substantial judgment against the gas company in the Superior Court. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was the company's liability insurer and sought to pay the judgment less an amount paid by its affiliate, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, to the Phillipses under a fire insurance policy written by it. The Phillipses refused the offer and demanded payment in full.
Thereupon, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, fearing that execution would issue on the judgment, commenced this action in Chancery naming as defendants the Phillipses and all parties claiming by subrogation any part of the amount recovered, and seeking to restrain the issuance of execution process by the Phillipses and to deposit the amount of the judgment in the registry of the Court of Chancery. A preliminary injunction was entered with the consent of the Phillipses and the total amount was deposited.
The Phillipses answered and moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. The Vice Chancellor denied the motion.
The Vice Chancellor's order upholding the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery over this cause was based partially, at least, on the conception that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was a mere stakeholder. The argument made by the Phillipses was to the effect that the face of the complaint showed that it was not in fact a stakeholder but was in fact a judgment debtor with the sole obligation of paying the judgment. Furthermore, it was argued that in attempting to enforce alleged rights of subrogation on behalf of Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, it has taken a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
- Roofers v. Gonzalez-Rodriquez
-
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., RHONE-POULENC
...Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States v. Young & Revel, Inc., Del.Supr., 250 A.2d 509 (1969); Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp., Del.Supr., 232 A.2d 101 (1967). Supreme Court Rule 42(b) requires not only that the interlocutory order determine a substantial issue and establis......
- Briggs v. Bd. of Med. Licensure, C.A. No. N11A-02-001 JRJ