Continental Motors, Inc. v. Soares ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.,                §
    n/k/a CONTINENTAL                        §
    AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES,                  §   No. 17, 2022
    a/k/a TECHNIFY MOTORS, a                 §
    Delaware Corporation; TECHNIFY           §   Court Below—Superior Court
    MOTORS, INC.; and TECHNIFY               §   of the State of Delaware
    MOTORS GmbH, a foreign                   §
    corporation,                             §   C.A. No. K19C-12-028
    §
    Defendants Below,                 §
    Appellants,                       §
    §
    v.                                §
    §
    JOSIANE SOUZA DA SILVA                   §
    SOARES, individually and as the          §
    Personal Representative of the Estate    §
    of ANTONIO PEREIA SOARES,                §
    deceased,                                §
    §
    Plaintiff Below,                  §
    Appellee.                         §
    Submitted: January 18, 2022
    Decided:   February 2, 2022
    Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
    ORDER
    After careful consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the
    supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, and the exhibits, it appears to the Court
    that:
    (1)     Defendants       below-Appellants,        Continental       Motors,       Inc.
    (“Continental”) and Continental Aerospace Technologies GmbH (“GmbH”),1 have
    petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory
    appeal from the Superior Court’s opinion and order denying their motion to dismiss.2
    (2)     This action arises from the crash of an aircraft in Turks and Caicos
    Islands (“TCI”) on December 23, 2017.3 The aircraft was built in Kansas.4 The
    aircraft engine, which was manufactured and tested by GmbH in Germany, was
    installed in the aircraft at Continental’s Alabama facility.5 A Brazilian company
    bought the aircraft, and hired a Brazilian pilot to fly the aircraft from Kansas to
    Brazil.6 Plaintiff below-Appellee Josiane Souza Da Silva Soares’s husband, a
    Brazilian citizen and employee of the Brazilian company, accompanied the pilot on
    the flight.7   During the course of the flight, the aircraft had to make ten planned
    stopovers to refuel. 8 Shortly after takeoff from a planned refueling stop in TCI, the
    aircraft engine failed and lost power.9 A possible cause of the failure was engine
    1
    According to the notice of interlocutory appeal, GmbH was formerly known as Technify
    Motors GmbH – the name listed in the first amended complaint. There was also a third
    defendant, Technify Motors (USA), Inc., that merged with Continental in 2018 and was
    dissolved.
    2
    Soares v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 
    2021 WL 6015701
     (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2021).
    3
    Id. at *2.
    4
    Id.
    5
    Id.
    6
    Id.
    7
    Id.
    8
    Id.
    9
    Id.
    2
    hose failure and/or detachment.10 Plaintiff’s husband and the pilot died in the
    crash.11
    (3)    Plaintiff filed a products liability action against Defendants on
    December 20, 2019.12 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
    cause of action arose in TCI under Delaware’s choice-of-law rules and was barred
    by TCI’s one-year statute of limitations.13 Plaintiff contended that the cause of
    action did not arise in TCI because TCI was a fortuitous location of injury.14
    (4)    On December 17, 2021, the Superior Court denied the motion to
    dismiss. Based on the complaint, the court found that the location of the crash was
    fortuitous and that TCI did not have the most significant relationship with the
    occurrence and the parties. 15 The court deferred determination of which jurisdiction
    had the most significant relationship for a future time when the record was
    sufficiently developed.16
    (5)    On December 27, 2021, Defendants filed a timely application for
    certification of an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff opposed the application. On
    January 18, 2022, the Superior Court denied the application for certification.17
    10
    Id.
    11
    Id.
    12
    Id. at *1.
    13
    Id. at *2-3.
    14
    Id. at *4.
    15
    Id. at *5-11.
    16
    Id. a *11.
    17
    Soares v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 
    2022 WL 153239
     (Del. Super. Ct. Jan 18, 2022).
    3
    (6)     Finding that the interlocutory opinion determined a main question of
    law relating to the merits of the case and assuming that it raised a legal right, the
    Superior Court next addressed the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria Defendants relied upon for
    certification.18 As to Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) (question of law resolved for the first time
    in Delaware), the court found that the opinion applied well-settled legal principles
    to the facts of the case.19 The court concluded that the limited scope of the opinion,
    which did not include a complete choice-of-law analysis, did not implicate Rule
    42(b)(iii)(B) (conflicting trial court decisions on question of law).20 As to Rule
    42(b)(iii)(C) (question of law relating to constitutionality, construction, or
    application of statute that has not been, and should be, settled by this Court), the
    court found that the construction and application of the borrowing statute, 10 Del.
    C. § 8121 was well-settled.21 In light of the court’s determination that further
    development of the record was necessary to decide which jurisdiction had the most
    significant relationship, the court held that Rule 42(b)(iii)(G) (review of the
    interlocutory order may terminate the litigation) did not weigh in favor of
    certification.22 The Superior Court also concluded that interlocutory review would
    not serve considerations of justice (Rule 42(b)(iii)(H)) because a final determination
    18
    Id. at *2.
    19
    Id. at *3.
    20
    Id. at *4.
    21
    Id.
    22
    Id.
    4
    on choice-of-law required discovery that should not be further delayed.23 After
    considering these factors, the court held that the probable costs of interlocutory
    review did not outweigh the benefits of certification.24
    (7)     Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
    discretion of the Court.25 In the exercise of its discretion and giving due weight to
    the Superior Court’s analysis, this Court has concluded that the application for
    interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under
    Supreme Court Rule 42(b). We agree with the Superior Court that interlocutory
    review is not warranted in light of the further development of the record necessary
    for determination of choice-of-law in this case. Exceptional circumstances that
    would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s interlocutory opinion do
    not exist in this case,26 and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not
    outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory
    appeal.27
    23
    Id. at *5.
    24
    Id.
    25
    Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
    26
    Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii).
    27
    Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
    5
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is
    REFUSED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
    Chief Justice
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17, 2022

Judges: Seitz C.J.

Filed Date: 2/2/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/2/2022