election of remedies doctrine in Delaware

2020R. 8(e)(2); see Olympia Hotels Corp., 908 F.2d at 1371 (“Common law pleading was superseded long ago, however — in the federal courts by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which expressly abolish election of remedies.”). 32 See Stoltz Realty Co., 458 A.2d at 23 ; see also Olympia Hotels Corp., 908 F.2d at 1371 (“In its substantive aspect, however, the doctrine of election of remedies is not affected by the federal rules of procedure.”’). 33 Stoltz Realty Co., 458 A.2d at 22 . 13 held the plaintiff made a decisive act by electing the remedy of arbitration in regard to the defendant, and ther

2020R. 8(e)(2); see Olympia Hotels Corp., 908 F.2d at 1371 (“Common law pleading was superseded long ago, however — in the federal courts by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which expressly abolish election of remedies.”). 32 See Stoltz Realty Co., 458 A.2d at 23 ; see also Olympia Hotels Corp., 908 F.2d at 1371 (“In its substantive aspect, however, the doctrine of election of remedies is not affected by the federal rules of procedure.”’). 33 Stoltz Realty Co., 458 A.2d at 22 . 13 held the plaintiff made a decisive act by electing the remedy of arbitration in regard to the defendant, and ther

2020R. 8(e)(2); see Olympia Hotels Corp., 908 F.2d at 1371 (“Common law pleading was superseded long ago, however — in the federal courts by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which expressly abolish election of remedies.”). 32 See Stoltz Realty Co., 458 A.2d at 23 ; see also Olympia Hotels Corp., 908 F.2d at 1371 (“In its substantive aspect, however, the doctrine of election of remedies is not affected by the federal rules of procedure.”’). 33 Stoltz Realty Co., 458 A.2d at 22 . 13 held the plaintiff made a decisive act by electing the remedy of arbitration in regard to the defendant, and ther

2020R. 8(e)(2); see Olympia Hotels Corp., 908 F.2d at 1371 (“Common law pleading was superseded long ago, however — in the federal courts by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which expressly abolish election of remedies.”). 32 See Stoltz Realty Co., 458 A.2d at 23 ; see also Olympia Hotels Corp., 908 F.2d at 1371 (“In its substantive aspect, however, the doctrine of election of remedies is not affected by the federal rules of procedure.”’). 33 Stoltz Realty Co., 458 A.2d at 22 . 13 held the plaintiff made a decisive act by electing the remedy of arbitration in regard to the defendant, and ther

2015R. 56(c); Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995). 15 Brzoska, 668 A.2d at 1364 . 16 See Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-69 (Del. 1962). 17 See Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99-100 (Del. 1992). -7- the moment of election occurred once Maravilla-Diego obtained a final decision on the merits from the IAB that his Second Petition was time-barred. 18 In response, Maravilla-Diego and MBM contend Maravilla-Diego’s negligence claim is not barred by the election of remedies doctrine.

2015R. 56(c); Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995). 15 Brzoska, 668 A.2d at 1364 . 16 See Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-69 (Del. 1962). 17 See Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99-100 (Del. 1992). -7- the moment of election occurred once Maravilla-Diego obtained a final decision on the merits from the IAB that his Second Petition was time-barred. 18 In response, Maravilla-Diego and MBM contend Maravilla-Diego’s negligence claim is not barred by the election of remedies doctrine.

2015R. 56(c); Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995). 15 Brzoska, 668 A.2d at 1364 . 16 See Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-69 (Del. 1962). 17 See Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99-100 (Del. 1992). -7- the moment of election occurred once Maravilla-Diego obtained a final decision on the merits from the IAB that his Second Petition was time-barred. 18 In response, Maravilla-Diego and MBM contend Maravilla-Diego’s negligence claim is not barred by the election of remedies doctrine.

2015Appeals Bd., 2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 408, 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (interpreting statute explicitly permitting cumulative remedies against uninsured employer in workers’ compensation proceeding and in superior court: one compensation award or judgment will be credited against the other). -17- The Court finds that resolution of one avenue of relief in a final judgment— rather than successful recovery—is most consistent with the election of remedies doctrine as it has been applied in Delaware. 55 Pursuing a claim that eventually results in dismissal for being time-barred is in fact a valid election, alt

2015As the Court finds summary judgment is warranted under the election of remedies doctrine, it does not reach these alternative arguments. 19 See, e.g., Grabowski v. Mangler, 938 A.2d 637, 641 (Del. 2007) (“Workers’ Compensation is the exclusive remedy against the employer, and, therefore, injured employees -8- mandatory insurance coverage provisions, 20 the Act eliminates the employer’s immunity from personal injury claims at law. 21 Title 19 of the Delaware Code, section 2374(e) provides: (e) Whoever, being an employer, refuses or neglects to comply with the sections referred to in subsection

2015R. 56(c); Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995). 15 Brzoska, 668 A.2d at 1364 . 16 See Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-69 (Del. 1962). 17 See Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99-100 (Del. 1992). -7- the moment of election occurred once Maravilla-Diego obtained a final decision on the merits from the IAB that his Second Petition was time-barred. 18 In response, Maravilla-Diego and MBM contend Maravilla-Diego’s negligence claim is not barred by the election of remedies doctrine.

2015Francis de Sales, 15 A.3d 1247, 1259 (Del. 2011); Cheswold Volunteer Fire Co. v. Lambertson Constr.

1988“Broadly speaking, an election of remedies is the voluntary choice by a party to an action of one or more co-existing, but necessarily inconsistent and repugnant remedial rights growing out of the same known facts_” Hannigan v. Italo-Petroleum Corp., Del.Super., 181 A. 4, 5 (1935) (emphasis added); see also 25 Am.