HERCULES INC. v. AIG AVIATION, INC., 760 A.2d 162 (Del. 2000)

HERCULES INCORPORATED, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. AIG AVIATION, INC., ALLIANZ INS. CO., THE AMERICAN INS. CO, AMERICAN INS. CO., ASSOCIATED AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, CENTENNIAL INS. CO., CONTINENTAL INS. CO, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO., FIREMEN’S INS. CO. OF NEWARK, N.J., THE GLENS FALLS INS. CO., THE HANOVER INS. CO., INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS’ LONDON AND CERTAIN INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE LONDON MARKET, MUTUAL MARINE OFFICE INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH PA, SOUTHEASTERN AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC. (N/K/A AIG AVIATION, INC.), THE SEA INS. CO. (U.S. BRANCH), UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants Below, Appellees.

No. 50, 2000.Supreme Court of Delaware.
Decided: September 20, 2000.

Superior CA 98C-05-124.

Affirmed.

Unpublished Opinion is below.

HERCULES INCORPORATED, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. AIG AVIATION, INC., ALLIANZ INS. CO., THE AMERICAN INS. CO, AMERICAN INS. CO., ASSOCIATED AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, CENTENNIAL INS. CO., CONTINENTAL INS. CO, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO., FIREMEN’S INS. CO. OF NEWARK, N.J., THE GLENS FALLS INS. CO., THE HANOVER INS. CO., INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS’ LONDON AND CERTAIN INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE LONDON MARKET, MUTUAL MARINE OFFICE INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH PA, SOUTHEASTERN AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC. (N/K/A AIG AVIATION, INC.), THE SEA INS. CO. (U.S. BRANCH), UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants Below, Appellees. No. 50, 2000. Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: September 19, 2000. Decided: September 20, 2000.

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices.

ORDER
This 20th day of September 2000, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, and their contentions in oral argument, it appears to the Court that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons set forth in its well-reasoned decision dated January 7, 2000.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is Affirmed.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 760 A.2d 162

Recent Posts

LYON v. DBHI, LLC, C.A. No. U607-12-063 (Del. Jan. 27, 2010):

ROBERT LYONS Defendant Below, Appellant, v. DBHI, LLC, KURT T. BRYSON and RHONDA BRYSON Defendants…

3 years ago

TWITTER, INC. v. MUSK, C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Aug. 15, 2022)

TWITTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. ELON R. MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC., and X HOLDINGS II,…

3 years ago

TWITTER, INC. v. MUSK, C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Aug. 23, 2022)

Re: Twitter, Inc., v. Elon R. Musk et al. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM.Court of Chancery of…

3 years ago

TWITTER INC. v. MUSK, C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Aug. 25, 2022)

Re: Twitter, Inc., v. Elon R. Musk et al. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM.Court of Chancery of…

3 years ago

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. ALVAREZ, 179 A.3d 824 (2018)

179 A.3d 824 (2018) CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, New York City Employees' Retirement System,…

8 years ago

STATE v. FLONNORY, No. 9707012190 (Del. Super. 1/2/2018)

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff, v. FREDDY L. FLONNORY, Defendant. Cr. ID. No. 9707012190 SUPERIOR COURT…

8 years ago