Long v. Hardware Mutual Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that if a regulation is unambiguous, “then there is no room for judicial interpretation” and “the plain meaning” of the regulatory language controls (quoting CML V, LLC v. Bax, 28 A.3d 1037, 1041 (Del. 2011))
• stating that, under Delaware law, a statute is ambiguous only if it can have “two or more reasonable interpretations” or “if a literal reading would lead to an unreasonable or absurd result not contemplated by the legislature”
• affirming Superior Court’s denial of plaintiff s motion for expenses, applying the bad faith exception to the American Rule
• the party seeking to invoke the bad-faith exception must demonstrate by “clear evidence that the party from whom fees are sought . . . acted in subjective bad faith” (internal quotations and citations omitted)
• “The bad faith exception applies only in extraordinary cases, and the party seeking to invoke that exception must demonstrate [its applicability] by clear evidence. . . .” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).