Opinion
C.A. No. 02C-04-028
Date Submitted: May 30, 2002
Date Decided: July 24, 2002
UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.
Edmund Daniel Lyons, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Jos. Scott Shannon, Esq. of Tighe, Cottrell Logan, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.
ORDER
On this 24th day of July 2002, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's Response and oral argument, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On April 2, 2002 this lawsuit was filed concerning a claim for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 7, 2000. In lieu of an answer, Defendant filed this Motion to Dismiss contending that the statute of limitations had expired on this claim. Oral argument from both parties was heard on May 30, 2002. The court reserved decision allowing both parties to brief this matter by letter memoranda. Neither party took advantage of the court's offer.
(2) Defendant's sole contention raised in the motion is that bodily injury claims are subject to a two year statute of limitations pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8119. Defendant sets forth that the statute of limitations had expired as the motor vehicle accident in contention occurred March 7, 2000, over two years before the filing of the instant law suit.
(3) 18 Del. C. § 3914 states in relevant part:
An insurer shall be required during the pendency of any claim received pursuant to a casualty insurance policy to give prompt and timely written notice to claimant informing claimant of the applicable State Statute of Limitations regarding action for his/her damages. Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant's insurer of the claim on March 21, 2000. Defendant's insurer failed "to give prompt and timely written notice to claimant informing claimant of the applicable State Statute of Limitations regarding action for her damages." Id. Delaware courts have recognized section 3914 "as an expression of legislative will to toll otherwise applicable time limitations upon an insured's claim for damages made upon a casualty insurer." Lankford v. Richter, 570 A.2d 1148, 1149-50 (Del. 1990). Thus, "in the absence of such notification, the insurer and its insured would be barred from asserting the statute of limitations against the claimant." Samoluk v. Basco, Inc., 528 A.2d 1203, 1204 (Del.Super. 1987). In the case sub judice, Defendant's insurer's failure to comply with section 3914 bars Defendant from raising the statute of limitations as a defense to Plaintiff's claim for damages.
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is Hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.