Opinion
C.A. No. S12C-02-019 RFS
09-21-2012
Cecilia V. Newson and Jeffrey D. Newson v. Stephen H. Obeda, Stephen A. Obeda, Margaret E. Bollinger, Ronald I. Henson and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
JUDGE
SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE
1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
TELEPHONE (302) 856-5264
Kelly Dunn Gelof, Esquire
Tunnell & Raysor, P.A.
30 East Pine Street
P.O. Box 151
Georgetown, DE
Susan A. List Hauske, Esquire
Robert D. Cecil, Jr., Esquire
Tybout, Redfearn & Pell
759 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400
P.O. Box 2092
Wilmington, DE 19899
Melissa L. Dill, Esquire
Liguori & Morris
46 The Green
Dover, DE 19901
Reneta L. Green-Streett, Esquire
Young & McNellis
300 South State Street
Dover, DE 19901
Upon Defendant Margaret E. Bollinger's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Denied.
Dear Counsel:
In February 2010, Plaintiff Cecilia Newson was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendant Stephen H. Obeda ("Stephen H.") and Defendant Ronald Henson ("Henson"). Plaintiffs Cecilia Newson and Jeffrey Newson filed a personal injury complaint in February 2012. Count IV alleges vicarious liability and negligent entrustment against Defendant Margaret Bollinger ("Bollinger") based on her ownership of the Ford Explorer Stephen H. was driving at the time of the accident. Bollinger moves for summary judgment on grounds that she is not the registered owner of the Ford Explorer.
Issues of negligence are not generally susceptible to summary adjudication. The moving party bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of any material fact regarding negligence. If this showing is made, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidence that there is a genuine issue of material fact. If any evidence supports a favorable conclusion for the nonmoving party, summary judgment must be denied.
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 469 (Del.1962).
Id.
Id. at 470.
Plant v. Catalytic Constr. Co., 287 A.2d 682 (Del.Super.), aff'd 297 A.2d 37 (Del.1972).
Bollinger argues that she was not the registered owner of the Ford Explorer at the time of the accident. Based on the Delaware Uniform Collision Report, Bollinger asserts that Defendant Stephen A. Obeda ("Stephen A.") owned the vehicle. She further argues without evidentiary support that Stephen A. is Stephen H.'s father. Defendant Bollinger acknowledges that the insurance policy on the Ford Explorer is in her name. In her reply brief, Bollinger concedes that she may have been a previous owner of the Explorer.
Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment is premature because fact questions exist as to ownership of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Bollinger is the named insured, which suggests that she could be the registered owner or an equitable owner. Bollinger relies on an inadmissible document, the police report, to show that Stephen A. owned the vehicle. Plaintiffs request that discovery proceed in order to answer these questions.
Defendant Henson filed an answering brief, arguing that ownership of the vehicle is not an element of negligent entrustment. Instead, negligent entrustment and foreseeability of the plaintiff's damages are key factors. These assertions also raise fact questions. At this point, the record is devoid of evidence that Bollinger entrusted the Explorer to Stephen H. or that she knew him to be a careless driver. Henson asserts that Form 30 Interrogatories are the only discovery that has been taken and that further discovery is necessary. Henson reiterates Plaintiffs' argument that the police report relied on by Bollinger cannot prove who owns the Ford Explorer.
Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, by letter dated July 12, 2012, adopted the arguments set forth by Plaintiffs and Defendant Henson.
--------
It is notable that Count IV asserts Bollinger's vicarious liability but alleges the elements of negligent entrustment. This too raises questions of material fact.
Bollinger creates a fact question by her admissions that she is the named insured on the policy for the Explorer and that she may have been a former owner. Her admissions, in combination with Plaintiffs' arguments and Henson's arguments, show that multiple fact questions remain to be determined in regard to Count IV.
Bollinger's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The parties shall proceed with discovery as scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
Richard F. Stokes
Richard F. Stokes Original to Prothonotary