Blue Hen Mechanical, Inc. v. Christian Bros. Risk Pooling Trust, 117 A.3d 549

Blue Hen Mechanical was contracted in January 2008 to inspect and maintain the Little Sisters of the Poor's HVAC system, including a Carrier Chiller installed in 1999, with weekly winter inspections contemplated.
The Chiller failed in February 2008, requiring a replacement at $168,740; the Little Sisters sued Blue Hen for breach of contract and negligence in Superior Court.
The Superior Court granted Blue Hen summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence of Blue Hen's negligence and that contract duties had not begun at the time of loss.
After the judgment, Blue Hen filed a malicious-prosecution and abuse-of-process action in November 2012 alleging lack of probable cause and malice in the prior suit.
The Little Sisters obtained a May 2012 Dreyer affidavit suggesting Blue Hen's failure to monitor water flow contributed to the Chiller's failure; the trial record showed tensions over timely amendment and evidence.
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, refusing to extend malicious-prosecution liability, finding no evidence of malice and that the prior suit was brought with good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether malicious prosecution should extend to post-probable-cause conduct	Blue Hen argues Delaware should extend malicious-prosecution to continued litigation after lack of probable cause.	Little Sisters contends the tort should not be expanded beyond its traditional scope.	Not extended; no basis to broaden the tort.
Whether the record shows malice by Little Sisters	Blue Hen asserts malice based on continuing suit after weak initial discovery.	Little Sisters maintains good faith basis supported by experts and letters.	No evidence of malice; good faith basis shown.
Whether summary judgment was proper on negligence and contract claims	Dreyer affidavit later suggested negligence; insufficient initial expert; trial court misread.	Blue Hen maintained Dreyer's report failed to define duty or breach; contract duties not triggered.	Summary judgment appropriate; no triable negligence or contract claim.
Whether the supplemental Dreyer affidavit could defeat the original summary judgment	Supplemental affidavit would show Blue Hen's breach; should have been allowed.	Little Sisters delayed; the court refused amendment due to scheduling and prior awareness.	No reversal; procedural timing supported denial of amendment.

Nix v. Sawyer, 466 A.2d 407 (Del. Super. 1983) (malicious-prosecution standards and discouraging frivolous suits)
Kaye v. Pantone, Inc., 395 A.2d 369 (Del. Ch. 1978) (delaware view of malicious-prosecution, English-rule influence)
Wells v. Parsons, 3 Del. 505 (Del. Super. 1842) (malicious-prosecution elements and pleading standards)
Brice v. State, Dep’t of Correction, 704 A.2d 1176 (Del. 1998) (bad-faith exception to American Rule and fee-shifting goals)
Gatz Properties, LLC v. Auriga Capital Corp., 59 A.3d 1206 (Del. 2012) (Delaware bad-faith conduct and fee-shifting context in litigation)