IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ARUNA SAMPHA KANU,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

) C.A. No. N15C-11-002 CLS

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Upon Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. 

GRANTED.

Date Submitted: October 26, 2017

Date Decided: October 30, 2017

This is a personal injury action arising from Plaintiff Aruna Sampha Kanu’s 

(“Plaintiff”) alleged injuries. On February 13, 2015, three vehicles were involved in 

a motor vehicle accident where Plaintiff lost control of his vehicle and struck two 

other vehicles on northbound Interstate 95 (“I-95”). Plaintiff sought uninsured 

motorist benefits from his insurer, Defendant Allstate Insurance Company 

(“Defendant”). Defendant moved for summary judgment on November 25, 2016. 

Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on January 3, 2017. Subsequently, 

Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Response on January 6, 
2

2017. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on January 9, 2017. The Court 

ultimately denied Defendant’s motions reasoning that there were still genuine issues 

of material fact and summary judgment was inappropriate at that time. 

In the pre-trial conference on October 25, 2016, the Court asked the parties to 

file supplemental letters regarding the facts presented at trial. Defendant filed its 

letter on October 25, 2017. Defendant contends that summary judgment is now 

appropriate as there is no evidence to identify the alleged debris in the roadway. 

Defendant also states that Plaintiff is unable to show that the alleged debris 

originated from a motor vehicle, but even if it did, there is no evidence that a driver 

was negligent in causing the accident. Additionally, Defendant points out that 

Plaintiff admitted he was unaware of any alleged debris for nearly a month after the 

accident. Defendant contends that this fact makes it “impossible that he was actually 

reacting to debris he did not see.” Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s letter on 

October 26, 2017 opposing Defendant’s renewal of its motion for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff argues that contrary to Defendant’s assertion that there is no 

evidence demonstrating that debris was in the roadway, Plaintiff states that the 911 

call provides a sufficient basis for a jury to infer that the debris came from a vehicle. 

Plaintiff contends that the 911 call demonstrates a “passerby’s present sense 

impression that something on the road caused [Plaintiff] to spin out of control.”

Plaintiff avers that based on the evidence it is “more likely than not that this object 
3

was left on the road by another vehicle, and, as such, he should have received 

coverage under his uninsured motorist policy.” 

Based on the evidence before the Court, the pre-trial stipulation and the 

discussion at the pre-trial conference, Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary 

Judgment is granted. Defendant’s initial motion for summary judgment was denied 

because the Court determined that at that time issues of fact still existed regarding 

the alleged debris in the roadway. As five months have passed since the denial of 

Defendant’s original motion, Plaintiff has not brought forth any evidence 

demonstrating that the debris in the roadway came from a motor vehicle due to 

negligence of another driver. Under Delaware law, “[v]iewing the facts and 

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, if an 

essential element of the non-movant’s claim is unsupported by sufficient evidence 

for a reasonable juror to find in the party’s favor, then summary judgment is 

appropriate.”1 Even assuming that there was debris in the roadway, the facts before 

the Court only allow for mere speculation that the debris came from a vehicle. As 

the parties agreed at the pre-trial conference, uninsured motorist coverage only 

extends to situations where debris came from another motor vehicle due to the 

negligence of a driver. Here, there is nothing in the record indicating it did, and 

 

1 Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2012 WL 3264925, at *2 (Del. Aug. 13, 2012) 

(citing Nack v. Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc., 803 A.2d 428 (Del. 2002); Burkhart v. 

Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 58-59 (Del. 1991)).
4

Plaintiff is unable to testify or present evidence regarding the identity of the object. 

A jury would have to equally speculate whether the debris came from a vehicle or 

from a source wholly unrelated to a motor vehicle. This type of speculation is what 

warrants summary judgment. As a rational jury could not infer that the debris 

originated from a motor vehicle, Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law. For the 

foregoing reasons, Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s Renewed Motion for 

Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Calvin L. Scott

Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.