Mattel’s insurance clash over multi-year product liability claims for its Rock ’n Play Sleeper is moving to trial after Delaware’s top court denied early appeal.
Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc. are involved in a dispute over insurance coverage for product liability actions alleging that infants suffered bodily injury or death while using the Rock ’n Play Sleeper. The companies sought a determination on how these claims, referred to as the RNPS Claims, should be allocated across nine years of insurance coverage.
The insurers in the case include ACE American Insurance Company and ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, Chubb), Aspen Insurance UK, Great American Assurance, and Starr Indemnity & Liability. Each insurer provided coverage to Mattel and Fisher-Price during different policy years.
The Superior Court of Delaware issued a memorandum opinion and a letter decision resolving motions for summary judgment. The court found that all RNPS Claims constitute a single “occurrence” under the relevant insurance policies. For policies above the primary level, the claims should be allocated by the year in which the injury occurred. The court also determined that Great American has a duty to defend Mattel for claims allocated to 2013.
The court addressed several insurance policy terms. Under the umbrella policies’ “Corridor Retention Endorsements,” Mattel is responsible for one single Corridor Retention amount of $2,000,000 that applies to every policy. The court also found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether National Union’s 2011 umbrella policy fully incorporated the “Lot or Batch Clause Endorsement,” including the “Deemer Clause,” from the underlying policy.
Chubb moved for entry of partial final judgment or, in the alternative, certification of an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the Superior Court determined a substantial issue of material importance. The Superior Court declined to certify an interlocutory appeal, concluding that the opinions did not decide a substantial issue of material importance that merits review before a final judgment.
On August 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Delaware refused to accept the interlocutory appeal. The court found that, although the Superior Court decided substantial issues of material importance to the merits of the insurance-coverage dispute, they did not merit interlocutory review. The justices noted that trial is scheduled for April 2026 and that there was no urgent need for appellate intervention or risk of irreparable harm from awaiting a final decision at trial.
This case illustrates the complexities of allocating liability claims across multiple insurance policy years and layers, and the impact of specific policy endorsements on coverage. The Supreme Court’s decision means the parties will proceed to trial, with coverage issues and allocation questions still to be resolved.
