Opinion
C.A. No. N10C-03-245 JAP.
Submitted: July 27, 2010.
Decided: October 25, 2010.
Upon Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED . Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment GRANTED .
Edward T. Ciconte, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff Ronnalene Colbert.
Shae Chasanov, Esquire, Wilmington Delaware, Attorney for Defendant GEICO.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Ronnalene Colbert and Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company, ("GEICO"), have presented cross motions which require this Court to determine whether a provision in a GEICO Insurance policy relating to uninsured/underinsured motorists is enforceable.
On June 5, 2007, Colbert was injured in an automobile collision while a passenger in a car driven by Ellen Barnes. Both Ellen Barnes and the driver of an unidentified vehicle were negligent in causing the collision. Colbert was insured under Ellen Barnes' automobile insurance policy issued by GEICO which provided bodily injury coverage and uninsured motorist coverage, each in the amount of $15,000 per person. The uninsured motorist coverage portion of the policy contains the following reduction provision:
GEICO's Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 1; Colbert's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 1.
The amount payable under this coverage will be reduced by all amounts: . . . (b) Paid or payable under the Bodily Injury and Property damage Coverage of this policy. . . .
GEICO contends that since Colbert has already been paid $15,000 under the bodily injury coverage portion of its policy, the amount of $15,000 should be deducted from the amount payable under the uninsured motorist coverage portion of the policy (that amount also being $15,000) meaning that Colbert is not entitled to any recovery under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy. Colbert does not dispute GEICO's interpretation of its policy. Instead, she contends that the pertinent GEICO policy provision is void under Delaware law. She is correct.
Discussion Delaware's Uninsured Motorist Coverage
The purpose behind Delaware's uninsured/underinsured motorist statute is to fully protect innocent parties from impoverished tortfeasors. Any insurance policy provision that limits or reduces uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to less than what the statute stipulates is void. An innocent claimant who is not fully compensated for bodily injury damages which are legally recoverable from an uninsured/underinsured driver shall be entitled to payment up to the limits of the uninsured/underinsured coverage policy.
18 Del. C. § 3902.
Hurst v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 652 A.2d 10, 12-14 (Del. 1995).
Hurst, 652 A.2d at 12.
Hurst, 652 A.2d at 13-14 (citing 18 Del. C. § 3902(b)(1) and (3)); Nationwide Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peebles, 688 A.2d 1374, 1377 (Del. 1997) (interpreting the statute to mean that uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage shall pay for any bodily injury damage that the insured is legally entitled to recover from the driver of an underinsured vehicle).
The pertinent language in the GEICO policy serves to reduce the uninsured/underinsured policy limits by the amount the injured party receives from other insurance. But, on at least two occasions, the Delaware Supreme Court has held that such language violates state law. In Hurst v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., a claimant who was injured by an uninsured driver had her own uninsured/ underinsured policy containing a reduction provision which permitted her policy limits to be reduced by any amounts paid by liable parties. However, the Hurst Court found that an innocent claimant that "has not been fully compensated for all the bodily injury damages that could legally be recovered from the uninsured . . . driver" is entitled to receive payment for those uncompensated injuries up to the policy limits of the uninsured motorist carrier. In so finding, the Court there held that the policy provision allowing a reduction from the policy limits of the amount paid by liable parties was void.
18 Del. C. § 3902(b)(3); Hurst, 652 A.2d at 13.
See Peebles, 688 A.2d at 1378; Hurst, 652 A.2d at 13-14.
Hurst, 652 A.2d at 13-14.
Hurst, 652 A.2d at 14.
Similarly, in Nationwide Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peebles, while the injured claimant received payment of the policy limits from the tortfeasor's liability carrier, she was not fully compensated. Subsequently, the claimant's own uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier subtracted from its policy limits that amount paid by the tortfeasor's carrier with the result that she was still not fully compensated. This carrier's policy contained a similar provision to the one before the Court in that it allowed for a reduction of any amounts paid by liable parties from the policy limits. The Peebles Court held that the carrier's provision violated the statute and that any reduction be subtracted from the full amount of a claimant's bodily injuries and not from the policy limits.
Peebles, 688 A.2d at 1375.
Peebles, 688 A.2d at 1376.
Peebles, 688 A.2d at 1378.
GEICO proffers no meaningful distinction between the instant matter and Hurst and Peebles, and the Court finds none. Instead, GEICO relies on Deery v. Hutchins to support the contention that its reduction provision is valid and that Colbert should not receive more than the $15,000 already paid. Deery, however, relies almost in its entirety upon Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v Kenner. But, Kenner was expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in Hurst. Accordingly, Kenner and its progeny, including Deery, are no longer good law.
1992 WL 390680 (Del. Super. Dec. 8, 1992).
Deery, 1992 WL 390680 at *2; 570 A.2d 1172 (Del. 1990).
Hurst, 652 A.2d at 15.
Hurst, 652 A.2d at 15.
The Court holds, therefore, that Hurst and Peebles are controlling. The pertinent language in the GEICO policy is void because it purportedly causes other insurance payments to reduce the uninsured/underinsured limits in the policy. Accordingly, GEICO's motion for summary judgment is DENIED , and Colbert's motion for partial summary judgment as to the reduction provision is GRANTED .