Case Title: Martin v. National General Assurance Company

Citation: 

Docket Number: 590, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES L. MARTIN, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
NATIONAL GENERAL 
ASSURANCE COMPANY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 590, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N13C-01-020 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 2, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 9, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of July 2014, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, James L. Martin, filed this appeal from an 
order of the Superior Court, dated September 27, 2013, denying Martin’s motion 
for partial summary judgment and granting summary judgment to the appellee, 
National General Assurance Company (“National”).  We find no merit to the issues 
Martin raises on appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) 
Martin is a Delaware resident who had an automobile insurance policy 
with National for personal injury protection (PIP) and uninsured/underinsured 
 
2
(UM/UIM) motor vehicle driver protection.  Martin was involved in an accident 
while riding his bicycle in an organized cycling event in New Jersey in September 
2010.  He was found lying by the side of the road with his bicycle on top of him.  
He suffered broken teeth and a five inch cut to his face, which required emergency 
medical care.  Martin had no memory of what caused the accident, and there were 
no eyewitnesses.   
 
(3) 
Martin sought to recover benefits under his policy with National, 
alleging that he had been the victim of a hit-and-run motor vehicle.  National 
denied coverage, finding no evidence that a motor vehicle was involved in 
Martin’s accident.  Martin then sought arbitration before an Insurance 
Commissioner’s panel under 21 Del. C. § 2118(j).  The arbitration panel found that 
Martin’s evidence did not support a finding that a motor vehicle had been involved 
in his accident.  The panel, therefore, concluded that there was no applicable 
insurance coverage. 
 
(4) 
Martin then filed an appeal with the Superior Court seeking de novo 
review under 21 Del. C. § 2118(j)(5).  Martin’s complaint sought PIP benefits and 
UM benefits, as well as exemplary damages for National’s bad faith denial of his 
claim.  After National filed a partial motion to dismiss and Martin filed a partial 
motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court denied both motions without 
prejudice pending the conclusion of discovery on Martin’s PIP claim.  The 
 
3
Superior Court also stayed further discovery and consideration of Martin’s UM and 
bad faith claims pending the resolution of the PIP claim.   
 
(5) 
In September 2013, upon completion of discovery, both parties filed 
renewed motions for summary judgment on the PIP claim.  The Superior Court 
held a hearing on September 27, 2013.  Martin argued that the Superior Court 
should take judicial notice that Martin had been awarded $685.22 from the State of 
New Jersey’s Victim of Crime Compensation’s Office (NJVCCO) and that this 
award constituted an administrative tribunal’s decision that he had been involved 
in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident.  Martin also argued that the experts’ 
reports all agreed that his bicycle, which was damaged beyond repair, had 
impacted a stationary object and that the only known objects in the vicinity of the 
accident site were automobiles.  Martin expressly denied that there was any 
material fact in dispute. 
 
(6) 
In support of its motion for summary judgment, National argued that 
there was no evidence of what happened to cause Martin’s bicycle accident.  
National agreed that the evidence established that Martin’s bicycle had impacted a 
stationary object, but that there was no evidence that the stationary object was a 
motor vehicle.  National asserted that the letters from the NJVCCO issuing 
payments to Martin did not constitute a finding that a motor vehicle was involved 
in Martin’s accident, and the NJVCCO’s payments were expressly made 
 
4
conditional if Martin was later found to be ineligible.  National further argued that 
the only qualified expert’s report indicated that, while Martin had collided with a 
stationary object, there was no material transfer from the stationary object to 
Martin’s bicycle and thus no evidence to conclude that the impact was with a 
motor vehicle. 
 
(7) 
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Superior Court expressly noted 
that the parties, by filing cross-motions for summary judgment, expressly agreed 
that there was no material fact in dispute.1  The Superior Court found that the 
NJVCCO’s letters did not constitute a finding of fact that a motor vehicle was 
involved in Martin’s accident of which the court could take judicial notice under 
Delaware Rule of Evidence 201(b).2  The Superior Court concluded that Martin’s 
evidence in the record was only speculative and did not prove that a motor vehicle 
was involved in his accident in order to trigger coverage under National’s policy.  
Accordingly, the Superior Court denied Martin’s motion for summary judgment 
and granted National’s motion for summary judgment.  The trial court found the 
remaining motions and claims to be moot.  This appeal followed. 
                                                 
1 Superior Court Civil Rule 56(h) provides, “Where the parties have filed cross motions for 
summary judgment and have not presented argument to the Court that there is an issue of fact 
material to the disposition of either motion, the Court shall deem the motions to be the equivalent 
of a stipulation for decision on the merits based on the record submitted with the motions.” 
2 Delaware Uniform Rule of Evidence 201(b) provides, “A judicially noticed fact must be one 
not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known with the territorial 
jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to 
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 
 
5
 
(8) 
Martin raises three issues in his opening brief on appeal.  First, he 
contends that the Superior Court did not conduct a de novo review of his appeal 
from the Insurance Commissioner’s panel’s ruling.  Second, Martin appears to 
argue that the Superior Court erred in granting National’s motion for summary 
judgment because National had implicitly withdrawn its motion.  Finally, Martin 
argues that he should have been permitted to argue for summary reversal of the 
Superior Court’s decision on appeal.  We find no merit to any of Martin’s claims. 
 
(9) 
Martin’s first contention—that the Superior Court did not consider his 
appeal de novo—is based on the Prothonotary’s failure to add Martin’s motion for 
partial summary judgment as to liability, which was manually filed by Martin on 
March 1, 2013, to the Superior Court’s electronic docket.  Martin argues that the 
Superior Court could not have conducted a de novo review because the evidence 
attached to his motion was never made part of the record.  We disagree.  Although 
the Prothonotary may have mistakenly failed to add Martin’s filing to the 
electronic docket, the record is clear that the Superior Court judge received a copy 
of the motion (which he acknowledged in a letter to the parties) and considered it, 
as well as National’s response, when the judge denied the motion without prejudice 
to Martin’s right to re-file upon the completion of discovery.   
 
(10) Martin, in fact, re-filed his motion for summary judgment.  National 
also re-filed its motion for summary judgment.  Those cross-motions constituted a 
 
6
stipulation by the parties that the record was complete and a decision on the merits 
could be reached.3  Martin argued his renewed motion for summary judgment and 
never raised an issue suggesting that the record was incomplete. In the absence of 
plain error, Martin’s failure to raise this argument below constitutes a waiver of 
this claim on appeal.4  We find no error, plain or otherwise, because it is clear from 
the transcript of the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment that the 
Superior Court considered all of Martin’s evidence de novo and simply found that 
the evidence did not support his motion for summary judgment. 
 
(11) Martin’s second argument on appeal is difficult to follow.  He appears 
to contend that the Superior Court erred in ruling on National’s motion for 
summary judgment rather than deeming the motion to be withdrawn. Martin 
asserts that National filed its cross-motion for summary judgment on September 
13, 2013, indicating the absence of any factual dispute.  Four days later, the parties 
filed their pre-trial stipulation in which National represented to the court that, “The 
parties in good faith believe there is a dispute of coverage preventing settlement of 
the claims.”  Martin argues that this statement is a concession that genuine issues 
of material fact existed in the case, which the Superior Court should have 
construed as National’s implicit withdrawal of its motion for summary judgment. 
                                                 
3 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(h) (2014). 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2014). 
 
7
 
(12) Martin never raised this argument below.  In fact, both parties 
represented to the Superior Court at the hearing on the cross-motions for summary 
judgment that the record was complete, and there was no genuine issue of material 
fact in dispute.  National’s representation in the pre-trial stipulation that a legal 
dispute existed as to insurance coverage in no way contradicts its representation in 
its motion for summary judgment that there was no genuine issue of material fact.  
There is simply no merit to Martin’s convoluted claim that the Superior Court 
should not have considered National’s motion for summary judgment because of 
the subsequently-filed pretrial stipulation. 
 
(13) Martin’s final claim is that this Court should adopt a procedure to 
permit an appellant to file for summary reversal on appeal.  Martin seems to 
suggest that his constitutional right to due process was violated because this Court 
allows appellees to file summary affirmance motions under Supreme Court Rule 
25 but does not have a corresponding rule to give appellants the same right to 
request summary reversal.  Martin’s argument is unrelated to the Superior Court’s 
judgment on appeal and, consequently, need not be considered by the Court.5  
Moreover, given that Martin has established no basis, after full briefing, for this 
Court to reverse the Superior Court’s judgment on appeal, his suggestion that he 
had a due process right to seek summary reversal clearly has no merit. 
                                                 
5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2014). 
 
8
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice