termination of the, litigation . . . ." Certification is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer, 575 F. Supp. 280, 283 (E.D. Pa. 1983). The party seeking certification has the burden of showing that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy against piecemeal litigation and of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment. See id. at 282; Chalfin v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 1117, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1990). Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden because an immediate appeal from the order entered August 4, 1992 will not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Section 1292(b) "is designed to allow for early appeal of a legal ruling when resolution of the issue may provide more efficient disposition of the litigation." Ford Motor Credit v. S. E. Barnhart & Sons, Inc., 664 F.2d 377, 380 (3d Cir. 1981). Where discovery is complete and the case is ready for trial an interlocutory appeal can hardly advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Caldwell v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 435 F. Supp. 310, 312 (W.D.N.C. 1977). See also Lorentz v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 472 F. Supp. 954, 956 (W.D. Pa. 1979) (certification denied when discovery was complete and trial was two months hence). Furthermore, where the issue involved in the interlocutory order is only one of many triable issues, an interlocutory appeal will not provide a more efficient disposition of the litigation. See id.
In this case the issues involving section 8371 raised in the order entered August 4, 1992 are only a few of the several issues involved in this litigation. The more important and potentially time-consuming aspects of the case do not implicate the bad faith issue, but rather involve Plaintiff's and Defendant's presentation of evidence regarding Plaintiff's claim and Defendant's defenses under principles of insurance contract law and the Slayer's Act. Furthermore, discovery was complete on January 31, 1991 and the trial is scheduled for January 11, 1993. Under these circumstances, an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
This lawsuit is "an action arising under an insurance policy" within the meaning of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8371 (Supp. 1992). Plaintiff has presented allegations of bad faith conduct which, if proved, could possibly lead to liability for Defendant under section 8371. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant's motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, an interlocutory appeal of these issues would not materially advance the ultimate termination of this lawsuit. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant's motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
An appropriate order follows.
Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, Judge
December 14, 1992
Upon consideration of Defendant Continental Assurance Company's motion for reconsideration of the order dated July 31, 1992 and entered August 4, 1992 denying Defendant's third motion in limine, or, in the alternative, for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1292(b), Plaintiff's response, and for the reasons stated in the foregoing memorandum, Defendant's motion is DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, Judge