In two separate asbestos related actions, the Delaware Superior Court refused to certify interlocutory appeals of defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Defendants argued that the trial judge failed to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman and that an interlocutory appeal would be the most efficient way to resolve the action.  The trial judge, however, concluded that Defendants failed to meet the standard for certifying an interlocutory appeal for several reasons.  First, the trial judge concluded that motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction do not determine “substantial issues” as required by Supreme Court Rule 42.  Second, the trial judge concluded that it merely applied well settled Delaware law.  Finally, the trial judge concluded that it would be inefficient, in these multi-defendant cases, to allow the “lion’s share of the case [to] languish…awaiting disposition.” Orders available at here and here.