Opinion
C.A. No. S17C-01-029 RFS
04-25-2018
RE: Joseph Grimes v. Maureen Geelhaar
Edward C. Gill, Esq. Law Office of Edward C. Gill 16 North Bedford Street P.O. Box 824 Georgetown, DE 19947 Miranda D. Clifton, Esq. Young & McNelis 300 South State Street Dover, Delaware 19901
RICHARD F. STOKES JUDGE Edward C. Gill, Esq.
Law Office of Edward C. Gill
16 North Bedford Street
P.O. Box 824
Georgetown, DE 19947 Miranda D. Clifton, Esq.
Young & McNelis
300 South State Street
Dover, Delaware 19901 Upon Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Lost Wage Claim.
Denied. Dear Counsel:
Before the Court is the Motion in Limine of Defendant Maureen Geelhaar ("Geelhaar") to exclude Plaintiff Joseph Grimes' ("Grimes") lost wage claim. The Motion is DENIED.
Facts
This is a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident which occurred on December 7, 2015. Geelhaar allegedly struck Grimes' work vehicle after she failed to stop at a stop sign on Route 24 in Sussex County. The impact caused Grimes' work vehicle to jackknife and roll over, resulting in both physical injury and property damage. Grimes was unable to work from December 7, 2015 to December 21, 2015, a period of two weeks. According to Grimes, he lost three jobs for his construction business as a consequence of the accident, resulting in a loss of $148,530. 79 in net income. He now seeks to recover the lost wages. Lost wages claims are initially paid under the PIP statutes, but Grimes' PIP benefits were exhausted by his medical bills only. He has yet to receive any compensation for lost wages.
The Court notes that the parties cite slightly different figures for the loss calculation. At trial concrete documentation would have to be relied upon to substantiate Grimes' claims.
Parties' Contentions
Geelhaar seeks to exclude Grimes' lost wages claim. She first states that "Delaware has long held that when a Plaintiff is self-employed they are only entitled to their net salary or regular draws and precludes recovery of wages based exclusively on the distribution of profits from his or her business." Geelhaar then acknowledges that Desantis v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company expanded the proper calculation of lost wages to include the person's "gross income minus all business expenses necessary for that gross income and relied upon tax return of the business." Finally, Geelhaar claims that Grimes has not produced any documentation of regular wages such as pay stubs or deposit history. Therefore, his claims are merely speculative and not a predictable calculation of lost wages. As a result, Geelhaar asks for the claim to be excluded.
Def.'s Mot. Limine 3. Geelhaar relies on U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Neighbors and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Girgis to assert this argument. Girgis relies on the reasoning supplied in Neighbors. Neighbors was overruled by the 1982 amendment to 21 Del. C. § 2118. Therefore, Geelhaar's reliance on these cases is misplaced.
Id.
Grimes cites Desantis to support the assertion that a self-employed person may be able to recover lost wages under the PIP statute "if it can be shown to a jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the income is predictable." He then argues that it is clear that the issue of predictability of lost income "is simply a jury question." Therefore, according to Grimes, the question of whether he may recover lost wages should be presented to the jury.
Pl.'s Resp. Opp'n Def.'s Mot. Limine 2.
Id. --------
Discussion
The question presented here goes to the sufficiency of the evidence of lost wages presented by Grimes and whether a rational jury could return a verdict in his favor. It is the Court's opinion that Grimes may make a sufficient estimation of his profits and expenses in order to support his lost wages claim. As a self-employed individual, he is certainly in a position to present such evidence to the jury. While his previous tax returns do not show such significant earnings, there is no indication that Grimes' story is cut from whole cloth; therefore, he must be permitted to present his claim to the jury.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/_________
Richard F. Stokes, Judge Cc: Prothonotary