Opinion
C.A. No. K18C-09-001 WLW
01-29-2019
JOSE CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Joseph D. Stanley, Esquire of Schwartz & Schwartz, Dover, Delaware; attorney for Plaintiff. Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire of Reger Rizzo & Darnall, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for Defendant.
ORDER
Upon Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Denied. Joseph D. Stanley, Esquire of Schwartz & Schwartz, Dover, Delaware; attorney for Plaintiff. Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire of Reger Rizzo & Darnall, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for Defendant. WITHAM, R.J.
INTRODUCTION
Upon consideration of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, Allstate Insurance Co., ("Allstate"), the opposition of the Plaintiff, Jose Chavez ("Chavez"), and the record of the case, it appears that:
Allstate moves for partial summary judgment regarding only the bad faith count of Chavez's complaint. As such, the Court will not address Count 1 of his complaint, Breach of the Underinsured Motorist Insurance Contract.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. This claim arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on February 5, 2017, in Milford, Delaware. On that day, the Plaintiff, Chavez, was parked in his driveway located at 205 Lovers Lane, in Milford. For reasons unknown, one of the vehicle's doors was open.
2. At the same time, another driver, Jesus Rangel ("Rangel"), backed his vehicle into Chavez's driveway. Chavez, noticing Rangel's approach towards the open door, unsuccessfully attempted to shut the door before Rangel struck it with his vehicle. However, Rangel's vehicle did strike the door while Chavez was still holding onto it causing injuries to Chavez.
The severity of the injuries and when Chavez sought medical attention also appears to be disputed by the parties. Allstate additionally alleges that Chavez was involved in two accidents subsequent to the February 5, 2017 accident on May 27, 2017 and September 6, 2017. Allstate further alleges that all three claims involved claims pertaining to a right shoulder injury.
3. Subsequent to the accident, Chavez pursued an underinsured motorist claim against the underinsured motorist policy on his insurance policy he purchased through Allstate. His policy with Allstate provides a maximum of $50,000 in the underinsured motorist policy.
Chavez settled with Rangel for 15,000, the maximum insurance policy limits under Rangel's bodily injury liability policy with GEICO.
Pl. Reply at ¶ 5.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
4. Summary judgment will be granted when, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the moving party demonstrates that "there are no material issues of fact in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Enrique v. State Farm Mutual Auto-Mobile Insurance Co., 2015 WL 6330920, at *3 (Del. Super. Oct. 14, 2015) aff'd 142 A.3d 506 (Del. 2016) (citing Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del. 1991); see also Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c).
5. The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of material issues of fact; the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to show that there are material issues of fact in dispute. The Court views the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Bishop v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co., 2016 WL 7242582, at *1 (Del. Super. Dec. 15, 2016).
Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. Aug. 6, 1979).
6. If, after discovery, the non-moving party cannot make a sufficient showing of the existence of an essential element of the case, then summary judgment must be granted.
Slaubaugh Farm, Inc., et. al. v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 5473033, at *2 (Oct. 29, 2018) (citing Burhart, 602 A.2d at 59 cert. den., 504 U.S. 912 (1992); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986)).
7. However, when material facts are in dispute, or "it seems desirable to inquire more thoroughly into the facts, to clarify the application of the law to the circumstances," summary judgment will not be appropriate.
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-69 (Del. 1962) (emphasis added).
DISCUSSION
8. The crux of Allstate's argument is that Chavez's bad faith claim was made absent any factual basis since there has been no denial of coverage, but rather, Chavez has rejected Allstate's settlement offer and refused to continue negotiations.
D. Mot. at 3.
9. Chavez counters that partial summary judgment is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. He asserts that Allstate's "internal policies" provide the foundation for his bad faith claim and that those policies "inherently force obvious policy limit cases into litigation needlessly and without basis with the intent to hinder the spirit of the underinsured motorist insurance contract." Chavez further contends that since those internal policies, along with other items, requested as discovery have not been produced, partial summary judgment is improper. The Court agrees with Chavez that granting summary judgment in favor of Allstate is premature at this juncture of the litigation.
Pl. Reply at ¶ 7.
10. In order to establish bad faith, "the plaintiff must show that the insurer's refusal to honor its contractual obligation was clearly without any reasonable justification."
Saint-Louis v. Donegal Mutual Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3238592, at *2 (July 2, 2018) (citing Casson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 361, 369 (Del. Super. Sep. 20, 1982); see also Tackett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins., 653 A.2d 254, 264 (Del. 1996).
11. In this case, Chavez has raised issues regarding bad faith that bear further investigation and development. However, the deadline for discovery has not expired and will not expire until October 22, 2019, approximately ten months from now. The Court would be remiss not to permit Chavez to conduct his discovery in the time set forth by the Court and, if necessary, pursue remedies if Allstate objects to or in anyway hampers his discovery requests.
Ebersole, 180 A.2d at 468.
See Scheduling Order, Chavez v. Allstate Ins. Co., K18C-09-001 WLW, Nov. 7, 2018.
12. The Court further notes that Allstate has failed to provide answers to Chavez's second set of interrogatories, nor provided requested discovery, but has not indicated to the Court that it objects to either. The Court would expect Allstate to raise any objection it has to these requests from Chavez. But, summary judgment is not an appropriate avenue here.
Chavez's opposition is based in part on Allstate's lack of response to a second set of interrogatories he presented Allstate on November 26, 2018. Additionally, Chavez seeks to take a deposition from Ms. Sharon Little, an insurance adjuster employed by Allstate. To date, Chavez has filed no motion to compel the production of this evidence, nor any other evidence and Allstate has not provided the Court any reason why those requested discovery items should not be produced.
13. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Chavez has been unable to fully investigate and develop facts that may be pertinent to his bad faith claim. As a result, Allstate's motion for partial summary judgment is premature and must be denied at the present time.
Pl. Reply at ¶ 10. --------
CONCLUSION
14. For the foregoing reasons, Allstate's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ William L . Witham, Jr.
Resident Judge