.Id. (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arms , 477 A.2d 1060, 1064 (Del. 1984) ). According to the Supreme Court, "[a] plain reading of the two subsections mandates that an insurer must (1) not deliver any insurance policy without the minimum uninsured coverage, unless rejected by the insured in writing; and must (2) make a meaningful offer supplying the insured with supplemental uninsured/underinsured coverage up to the limits of an insured's bodily injury liability insurance."
The Supreme Court of Delaware recently described the background to the State Legislature's enactment of Section 3902(b). Arms v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 477 A.2d 1060 (Del. 1984). Section 3902 was intended to provide insured motorists with compensation when they were injured by uninsured or underinsured motorists.
Thus subsection (a) is designed to promote a mandatory minimum of uninsured motorist coverage. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arms, Del.Supr., 477 A.2d 1060, 1063 (1984). The intent of subsection (b), however, is to assure that insureds have the right to purchase additional uninsured/underinsured coverage beyond the minimum provided in subsection (a), and assure that they are aware of the extra coverage.
Before the statute was amended to its current form, our decisions established that prior versions of the statute similarly obligated insurers to offer a minimum amount of uninsured motorist coverage. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arms, Del.Supr., 477 A.2d 1060 (1984). See also O'Hanlon v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co., 439 F.Supp. 377 (D.Del. 1977), modified, 639 F.2d 1019 (3rd Cir. 1981).
Kenner v. Aetna Casualty Sur. Co., Del.Super., C.A. No. 85C-JL-87, Babiarz, J., 1987 WL 10532 (Apr. 24, 1987). See also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arms, Del.Supr., 477 A.2d 1060 (1984). Aetna has not appealed this ruling.
The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that pursuant to 18 Del.C. § 3902(b), every insurer must offer additional UM coverage up to a ceiling of the lesser of $300,000 or the particular policy's bodily injury liability limits whenever the automobile policy is changed in such respects as the vehicle insured, the coverage provided, and/or the identity of the named insured. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Arms, 477 A.2d 1060, 1066 (Del. 1984). The defendant, in order to avoid the Arms case, advances two arguments.
Section 3902(b) requires insurers to offer the insured the option to purchase additional uninsured and underinsured coverage "for personal injury or death up to a limit of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident or $300,000 single limit, but not to exceed the limits for bodily injury liability set forth in the basic policy."State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Arms, 477 A.2d 1060 (Del. 1984).Id.
" Jersey Central Power Light v. Township of Lacey, 772 F.2d 1103, 1109 (3d Cir. 1985). The Delaware courts have uniformly interpreted Section 3902(b) as requiring a mandatory offer of additional coverage above the statutory minimum for uninsured motorists in order to assure that each motorist is advised of his right to contract for uninsured motorists coverage in an amount equal to the lesser of his liability coverage or $300,000.State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arms, 477 A.2d 1060, 1064 (Del.Super. 1984); O'Hanlon v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 522 F. Supp. 332, 334 (D.Del. 1981), aff'd, 681 F.2d 807 (3d Cir. 1982). This disclosure mechanism is intended to promote informed decisions on automobile insurance coverage.
(footnotes omitted.)); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arms, 477 A.2d 1060, 1065 (Del. 1984) (renewal is "merely the automatic continuation of the preceding policy, identical in form and substance, except as to date, and perhaps, the premium"). Because Hawaii's insurance code contains no statutory definition of the term "replacement policy," we look to other jurisdictions for guidance.
It is well-settled that changing vehicles included in the coverage of a policy is considered a material change.See State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arms, 477 A.2d 1060, 1064-66 (Del. 1984); Shukitt v. United Services Auto. Ass'n., 2003 WL 22048222, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 13, 2003). See Arms, 477 A.2d at 1065; Mason v. United Services Auto. Ass'n., 697 A.2d 388, 393 (Del. 1997); Shukitt, 2003 WL 22048222, at *3.