Sen. Darius Brown

This Act authorizes a reduction in the realty transfer tax for senior Delaware residents who have resided in Delaware for at least 10 consecutive years prior to entering into a transaction to sell their primary Delaware residence. This reduction only applies to an amount equal to 1/2 percent multiplied by the lesser of the value of the property, or $400,000. This reduction is modeled after the first-time home buyer reduction previously authorized for purchasers.

Section 1. Section 1 of this Act amends Sections 145(c) and 145(g). Amended Section 145(c) corrects a typographical error but otherwise makes no substantive changes. The amendments to Section 145(g) expressly authorize a corporation to purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of its directors, officers, employees and other indemnifiable persons by or through a “captive insurance company,” which, in general, is an insurer directly or indirectly owned, controlled and funded by the corporation. The captive insurer may be licensed in Delaware or another jurisdiction. Like third-party insurance, the captive insurance may provide coverage for liabilities incurred by directors, officers, employees and others whether or not the corporation would have the power to indemnify them under Section 145. Thus, captive insurance could be used to provide coverage for, among other things, amounts paid to satisfy judgments and settlements of claims brought by or in the right of the corporation, even though the corporation would not have the power to indemnify the covered persons against such amounts. Amended Section 145(g) contemplates that captive insurance may be procured pursuant to any “fronting” or other reinsurance arrangement (such as when a corporation obtains insurance from a third-party insurer but, through a reinsurance policy, all or part of the risk of loss is transferred to a captive insurer). Section 145(g)(1) requires that a captive insurance policy must exclude from coverage, and must provide that the insurer may not make payment in respect, of any loss that arises out of, is based upon or is attributable to any personal profit or financial advantage to which the covered person was not legally entitled (e.g., an undue financial benefit from a self-dealing transaction), any deliberate criminal or deliberate fraudulent act, or any knowing violation of law. Despite these exclusions, directors may be covered under a captive insurance policy for certain liabilities that are not exculpable under Section 102(b)(7), including non-exculpated liability stemming from so-called Caremark or oversight claims where there is not otherwise a finding that the directors knowingly caused the corporation to violate the law. The coverage exclusions in Section 145(g)(1) only apply if the proscribed conduct has been established in a final, non-appealable adjudication in the underlying proceeding in respect of the claim. They do not apply if the proscribed conduct has been established in an adjudication in an ancillary proceeding by the insurer or the insured to determine coverage. Because the exclusions in Section 145(g)(1) are invoked only after an adjudication in the underlying proceeding, a captive insurance policy could cover amounts paid in settlement of proceedings that allege conduct referenced in Section 145(g)(1). Amended Section 145(g) makes clear that the conduct of one person insured under the captive policy will not be imputed to any other insured person for purposes of applying the conduct exclusions set forth in Section 145(g)(1). In addition, the exclusions in Section 145(g)(1) do not apply to the extent the corporation would otherwise be entitled to indemnify the covered person under the other provisions of Section 145. A corporation that establishes a captive insurance program may include in the insurance policy limitations or exclusions from coverage that are in addition to those prescribed by statute. Amended Section 145(g)(2) provides that any determination to make a payment under a captive insurance policy must be made either by a third-party administrator or in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of Section 145, to ensure that the persons claiming entitlement to payment under the captive insurance policy are not the same persons making the decision whether to pay claims under the policy. Amended Section 145(g)(3) provides that if any payment is to be made under the captive insurance policy in connection with the dismissal or compromise of any action, suit or proceeding by or in the right of the corporation as to which notice is required to be given to stockholders, the corporation must include in the notice that a payment is proposed to be made under the captive insurance policy in connection with the dismissal or compromise. Section 145(g)(3) thereby affords the reviewing court and stockholders an opportunity to consider the use of assets of the captive insurance company in connection with a compromise of such actions, suits or proceedings. However, amended Section 145(g) does not require a court to make any specific determinations with respect to payments by a captive insurer. The amendments to Section 145(g) make clear that a corporation that establishes and maintains a captive insurance company shall not, solely by virtue thereof, be subject to the provisions of Title 18 of the Delaware Code regulating insurance companies. The amendments to Section 145(g) are not intended to prohibit other forms of insurance that would have been permitted under the provisions of Section 145(g) that predated this amendment.

This Act requires each school district and charter school to provide each student in preschool, kindergarten, and in grades 2 and 4 an oral health screening by January 15 of each school year. The Division of Public Health (DPH) offers school-based oral screening and fluoride applications through the Delaware Smile Check program at no cost to the school district or charter school or to the student.

This Senate Concurrent Resolution proclaims January 23, 2022, as "Maternal Health Awareness Day" in the State of Delaware.

This concurrent resolution remembers and recognizes the life and service of former Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner.

This Senate Concurrent Resolution honors and recognizes the leadership, achievements, and sacrifices of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and urges all citizens of the First State to participate fittingly in the observance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day on January 17, 2022.

This Concurrent Resolution recognizes January 9, 2022, as "Law Enforcement Appreciation Day" in Delaware.

This resolution honors the life and legacy of former Delaware State Senator Robert L. Venables, Sr.

United States Supreme Court case law and scientific research has changed how we think about juvenile delinquency. We know now that an adolescent’s brain is not fully developed until the mid-twenties which makes juveniles especially prone to poor decision-making. In the landmark case of Miller v. Alabama, in which the United States Supreme Court prohibited mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles on the rationale that children are inherently different than adults, the Court relied not only scientific research but on common sense and what any parent knows: kids will be kids. Children in Delaware have minimum ages set for many things: getting a driver’s license, enlisting in the military, applying for a loan or opening a credit card, using a tanning bed, drinking alcohol, and buying tickets to an R-rated movie. This legislation sets a minimum age at which a child may be prosecuted, except for the most extreme offenses. This Bill prohibits the prosecution of children under the age of 12. It also bars the transfer of juvenile prosecution to the Superior Court unless the child is aged 16 or older. The exception to the prohibition on prosecuting children under 12 and transfer to Superior Court for children under 16, is only for the most serious of charges: murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, rape in the first and rape in the second degree or accused of using, displaying, or discharging a firearm during the commission of a Title 11 or a Title 31 violent felony set forth in § 4201(c) of Title 11. However, the bill allows for the prosecution of children under 12 for title 11 violent felonies and misdemeanor crimes of violence until January 1, 2022, when prosecution of such children will expire and thereafter children under the age of 12 who are suspected of committing a Title 11 violent felony or misdemeanor violent felony will be referred to the Juvenile Offender Civil Citation Program.

Confessions are powerful evidence of guilt. Therefore, this Act adopts the Uniform Law Commission's Uniform Electronic Recordation of Custodial Interrogations Act to promote truth-finding, promote efficiency, and protect constitutional values. Specifically, this Act mandates electronic recording of the custodial interrogation process by law enforcement when the interrogation relates to a crime allegedly committed by an adult or a delinquent act allegedly committed by a child. The type of recording required, either audio or audio and video, depends on the location of the custodial interrogation. Recognizing that a blanket requirement of recording electronically all interrogations is not feasible, this Act provides 5 exceptions to the recording mandate: (1) exigent circumstances, (2) an individual's refusal to be recorded, (3) interrogations occurring in other jurisdictions, (4) when the interrogator or interrogator's supervisor reasonably believes electronic recording would reveal a confidential informant's identity or jeopardize the safety of the officer, the individual interrogated, or another individual, and (5) equipment malfunctions. Further, this Act requires the prosecution to notify the defense of an intention to introduce an unrecorded statement and of the exception that permitted the lack of recording. This Act requires the prosecution to prove by clear and convincing evidence that an exception applies. This Act also prescribes remedies for violations of the electronic recording requirement, including the giving of a cautionary instruction to the jury. Additionally, this Act provides civil immunity for both law enforcement officers and law enforcement agencies. Finally, this Act requires the Council on Police Training to adopt rules to implement this Act, which are to be enforced by each law enforcement agency.