Background
Tiki’s Grill & Bar, LLC, a Honolulu restaurant, brought suit against its insurer, DTRIC Insurance Company, Limited, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Case No. 1CCV-20-0001213). The trial court ruled in favor of DTRIC, and Tiki’s Grill appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which docketed the matter as CAAP-22-0000084. After the ICA resolved the appeal against Tiki’s Grill, the restaurant sought further review by petitioning the Hawaii Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
The Supreme Court accepted the petition and set the matter for oral argument, which was heard on June 2, 2026. The five-justice panel included Chief Justice Devens, Justices McKenna and Ginoza, and two circuit judges sitting by designation — Circuit Judge Nichols (in place of Justice Eddins, who was recused) and Circuit Judge Holma (assigned by reason of vacancy).
Following oral argument, the court sua sponte reconsidered whether review had been properly granted.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawai’i dismissed the certiorari proceeding in its entirety, concluding that the writ of certiorari had been improvidently granted. The court issued the dismissal by order rather than a merits opinion, meaning the ICA’s decision in DTRIC’s favor remains the final appellate ruling in the case.
A dismissal for improvident grant signals that, upon closer examination — including the benefit of full briefing and oral argument — the court determined that the case did not present the type of error or question of law warranting supreme court intervention. No substantive analysis of the underlying insurance dispute was offered.
Key Takeaways
- The Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the certiorari proceeding as improvidently granted, leaving the ICA’s ruling in favor of DTRIC Insurance intact.
- No merits opinion was issued; the court’s order reflects a procedural retreat after oral argument revealed the case was not an appropriate vehicle for supreme court review.
- A dismissal for improvident grant carries no precedential value on the underlying insurance coverage questions and does not disturb the ICA’s judgment.
Why It Matters
For practitioners, this outcome is a reminder that acceptance of a certiorari petition in Hawaii is not a guarantee of merits review — even after oral argument, the court retains authority to dismiss if it concludes review was improvidently granted. Insurers and policyholders in Hawaii should look to the ICA’s unpublished disposition in CAAP-22-0000084 for the operative legal analysis on whatever coverage issues were litigated below.
The case also illustrates the procedural reality that supreme court dockets are shaped not only at the petition stage but sometimes only after full argument illuminates the limits of a case as a vehicle for broader legal guidance.