Super.Ct. May 18, 2006). 8 . Precision Air, Inc. v. Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc., 654 A.2d 403, 406 (Del.1995). 9 . Id. (citing Kofron v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 441 A.2d 226, 227 (Del.1982)). 10 . While voluntary agreements to pay benefits should be filed and subsequently approved by the board, failure by the employer to submit such an agreement to the board does not affect the finality of such an agreement. Seserko v. Milford School Dist., 1992 WL 19941, at *2 (Del.Super.) ("For purposes of applying the principles in Huffman, the Court finds no meaningful distinction between an agreement approved by the Board pursuant to § 2344 and a valid, private agreement for which the employer sought no Board approval.”); see also Starun v. All Am. Eng’g, Co., 350 A.2d 765, 768 (Del.1975) (<HOLDING>). 11 . 19 Del. C. § 2349 ("An award of the
holding that an insurer may not capitalize on the fact that it failed to submit an agreement for compensation to the board holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding that a schoolteacher elected by the school board was an employee not an official and therefore entitled to benefits under the workers compensation act holding that if counsel retained by an insurer acts as an investigator and not as an attorney then the communications between the insured and insurer are not privileged holding that it may not