Opinion
C.A. No. 07C-10-207 JAP.
Submitted: March 30, 2009.
Decided: April 22, 2009.
On Defendant American Independent Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Granted.Michael A. Pedicone, Esquire, Michael A. Pedicone, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Kimberly Meany, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant American Independent Insurance Company.
Dear Counsel:
In October 2005, Plaintiff Tianina Hanzer was driving northbound on Route 113 in Georgetown, Delaware. Defendant Jessica L. Wilkinson, who was driving a vehicle owned by her husband, Defendant Michael D. Wilkinson, allegedly pulled out of a parking lot into the direct path of Ms. Hanzer's car, causing a collision. At the time of the accident, Ms. Hanzer had an automobile insurance policy with Defendant American Independent Insurance Company ("American"); the Wilkinsons had no automobile liability insurance. Consequently, Ms. Hanzer seeks uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to her American policy.
The Wilkinsons failed to file an answer to the complaint and default judgments have been entered against both of them.
Before the Court is American's motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that Ms. Hanzer cannot recover uninsured motorist benefits under her policy because she expressly waived such coverage in writing. The undisputed facts show that Ms. Hanzer did waive uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3902(a) and therefore, American's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." When considering a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Furthermore, "[f]rom those accepted facts the court will draw all rational inferences which favor the non-moving party."DISCUSSION
The issue here is controlled by 18 Del. C. § 3902(a), which requires insurers to provide a minimum level of uninsured motorist coverage unless that coverage is expressly rejected in writing. Specifically § 3902(a) states:
No policy insuring against liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this State with respect to any such vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured or hit-and-run vehicles for bodily injury, sickness, disease, including death, or personal property damage resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured or hit-and-run motor vehicle.
(1) No such coverage shall be required in or supplemental to a policy when rejected in writing, on a form furnished by the insurer or group of affiliated insurers describing the coverage being rejected, by an insured named therein, or upon any renewal of such policy or upon any reinstatement, substitution, amendment, alteration, modification, transfer or replacement thereof by the same insurer unless the coverage is then requested in writing by the named insured. The coverage herein required may be referred to as uninsured vehicle coverage.
American contends that American has no duty to provide Ms. Hanzer with uninsured motorist coverage because she expressly waived such coverage in writing pursuant to § 3902(a)(1). Ms. Hanzer does not deny that she signed a waiver of uninsured coverage, however, she argues that it was not a meaningful waiver because she did not fully understand what she was signing. Plaintiff cites Mason v. United States Automobile Association in support of her argument that an insurance company should have to make a "meaningful offer" of uninsured motorist coverage under § 3902(a). In Mason, the Delaware Supreme Court held that an insurer's offer of additional uninsured motorist coverage under § 3902(b) must include "(1) an explanation of the cost of the coverage, and (2) a communication that clearly offers the specific coverage in the same manner and with the same emphasis as was on the insured's other coverage."
697 A.2d 388 (Del. 1997).
Id. at 393.
Plaintiff's argument in this case is identical to the one raised in Johnson v. AIG, wherein the plaintiff argued that when offering uninsured motorist coverage under § 3902(a) the insurer has a duty to include a reasonable explanation of the cost of the coverage so that the consumer can make an informed decision. The Johnson Court explained that while an insured has such a duty under § 3902(b), as explained in Mason, there is no corresponding requirement in § 3902(a). Rather, the Court stated that "[w]hile perhaps it would be a benefit to the consumer if such pricing notice was required, the Court can find no support for imposing such a requirement in the absence of a clear legislative mandate to do so." The Johnson Court therefore held that:
2004 WL 1732211 (Del.Super.).
Id. at *9 (stating that subsection (a) "does not require an `offer' like subsection (b) nor a detailed list of the cost of the various insurance coverages available to the insured"). See also Daniels v. Seacoast Cab Co., Inc., 2007 WL 313571 ("I am not persuaded that the "meaningful offer" requirement which the Supreme Court recognized in Mason v. United States Automobile Association in connection with subsection (b) also applies to subsection (a).").
While the Court can sympathize with [the plaintiff's] plight, it cannot provide relief simply because it is sympathetic to her situation nor can it interpret the law simply to minimize her unfortunate error in judgment.
As such, this Court holds that § 3902(a) simply requires that uninsured motorist coverage be included in the insurance written by a carrier unless specifically waived in writing by an applicant. Why one decides to waive the coverage or their knowledge of its costs simply is not relevant.
Id. at *10-11.
There is no dispute that Ms. Hanzer waived in writing any uninsured motorist coverage under her policy with American. Consequently, American has no duty to provide uninsured motorist benefits to Ms. Hanzer.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, American's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.