In a recent ruling, the Superior Court of Delaware addressed the issue of cost recovery in the case of Pousson v. D'Andrea (C.A. No: S23C-04-020 MHC). The court decided on September 4, 2026, to partially grant motions for costs filed by the defendants after a jury found no negligence and awarded the plaintiff, Lisa Pousson, no damages. This ruling has implications for how costs can be recovered in civil cases, particularly following a verdict favoring the defendants.
The case involved plaintiff Lisa Pousson, who filed a lawsuit against defendants Lianna D’Andrea, Sun Communities, Inc., and Blue Water Hospitality Management, LLC. The dispute arose from a civil action that concluded with a jury verdict on July 28, 2026, where the jury ruled in favor of the defendants, determining that no party was negligent. Following the verdict, the defendants sought to recover costs associated with the trial, which led to the motions currently under consideration.
The defendants, Sun Communities and Blue Water, filed a motion seeking $22,791.38 in costs, while defendant D’Andrea sought to recover $5,162.23. The plaintiff, Pousson, opposed these motions, arguing that the requested costs were excessive and unsupported. She emphasized her financial difficulties, citing her fixed disability income in New Jersey.
The court's ruling focused on the defendants' entitlement to recover costs as the prevailing parties. The court referenced Delaware law, specifically 10 Del. C. § 5101 and Superior Court Civil Rule 54, which allow for cost recovery by the prevailing party unless otherwise directed by the court. The court stated, "As the prevailing parties, Defendants are entitled to certain costs under 10 Del. C. § 5101 and Superior Court Civil Rule 54." This sets a precedent for future cases regarding the recovery of costs in civil litigation.
In its analysis, the court considered the specific costs requested by the defendants. For example, the court awarded costs for expert testimony, including $2,387.50 for Dr. Scott Rushton’s video trial testimony, which was deemed reasonable based on his qualifications and the complexity of the case. The court also awarded costs for the transcript of Dr. Rushton’s deposition, as it was introduced as evidence during the trial.
Further, the court granted costs for other expert witnesses, such as Jessica Smith and Terry Munoz, acknowledging that their fees were also reasonable and related to their trial appearances. The court noted, "Costs for expert testimony is well-established as compensable, so long as they are reasonable, which is a determination to be made by the Court." This reinforces the importance of expert testimony in civil trials and the potential for recovering associated costs.
In total, the court awarded Sun Communities and Blue Water $18,803.44 in costs and D’Andrea $3,466.91. The court declined to award certain costs that were deemed excessive or unsupported, such as travel and lodging expenses for trial support staff, and costs related to the plaintiff’s case-in-chief.
This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved and for similar cases in the future. It clarifies the standards for recovering costs in civil litigation, particularly in cases where defendants prevail. The decision also highlights the careful scrutiny the court will apply when determining the reasonableness of costs, ensuring that only justified expenses are recoverable.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if the plaintiff will appeal this decision. The court's ruling establishes a clear framework for cost recovery in civil cases, which may influence future litigation strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in civil litigation and the importance of understanding the financial implications of pursuing legal action.