Title: Atwell v. RHIS, Inc., et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 201, 2008
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
TINA A. ATWELL and ASHLEY 
) 
ATWELL a minor by her next friend )  No. 201, 2008 
Tina A. Atwell, 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
)  of the State of Delaware 
 
 
Appellants,  
 
)  in and for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  C.A. No. 02C-12-003 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
RHIS, INC. dba Reliable Home  
) 
Inspection Service, a Delaware  
) 
Corporation and LITITZ MUTUAL ) 
INSURANCE COMPANY, a  
) 
Foreign Corporation, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
) 
 
Submitted:  April 22, 2009 
Decided:  May 22, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED 
in part, and REMANDED. 
 
 
William D. Fletcher, Jr. (argued), Schmittinger & Rodriguez, P.A., Dover, 
Delaware; Mary F. Higgins, McGivney & Kluger, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware for 
appellants. 
 
 
Norman H. Brooks, Jr. (argued), Theodore J. Segletes, III, Marks, O’Neill, 
O’Brien & Courtney, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware for appellee RHIS, Inc. 
 
 
Stephen P. Casarino (argued) and Sarah C. Brannan, Casarino Christman 
Shalk Ransom & Doss, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware for appellee Lititz Mutual 
Insurance Company. 
 
STEELE, Chief Justice: 
 
2 
Tina Atwell filed suit in the Superior Court herself and on behalf of her 
daughter, Ashley Atwell, against Reliable Home Inspection Service, Lititz Mutual 
Insurance Company, and Richard Davis.  Atwell and Davis settled before trial.  
The trial judge granted Lititz’s motion for summary judgment and the trial 
proceeded against Reliable.  The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of 
Reliable.  Atwell now appeals the trial judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor 
of Lititz and the trial judge’s denial of her motion for a new trial.  We find that the 
trial judge appropriately granted summary judgment to Lititz.  In his closing 
argument, Reliable’s counsel implied that the fact Davis had settled amounted to 
admitting liability.  We conclude, for that reason, that the trial judge should have 
granted Atwell’s motion for a new trial.  Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in 
part, and remand for a new trial.  
FACT AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
On December 8, 2000, Atwell purchased a home from Richard Davis.  
Before the purchase, Atwell hired Reliable to inspect the home in conformity with 
standards set forth by the American Society of Home Inspectors (“ASHI”).  In 
completing the inspection, however, Reliable agent John Kerrigan misidentified 
the home’s heating system.  He mistook a down-flow system for an up-flow 
system.  Down-flow systems work by forcing hot air into ducts located below the 
heating system, and up-flow systems pump hot air into ducts above the heating 
 
3 
system.  Because Kerrigan misidentified the heating system, he failed to inspect 
many of its components and fell short of ASHI standards, which call for inspectors 
to examine all visible parts of a system.  Kerrigan also erred in several other 
aspects of his home inspection.  For example, he identified the attic as having 
gable end vents; in fact, the attic did not have any venting. 
 
Because of the poorly graded land around the home and its proximity to a 
swamp, subsurface water infiltrated the heating system’s underground ductwork.   
The heating system distributed this excess moisture throughout the house, resulting 
in significant damage from dry rot, mold, bacterial growth, and excessive 
humidity.  Atwell filed a claim with Lititz for the damage.  Lititz denied this claim, 
asserting that Atwell’s policy excluded damage from mold and subsurface water.  
Atwell later replaced the heating system with an up-flow system―a change that 
abated the above described problems. 
 
In 2005, Atwell filed suit against: (1) Davis for fraud and improper 
disclosure of the problems with the home; (2) Reliable for negligence in its home 
inspection; and (3) Lititz for wrongfully declining coverage under its insurance 
policy.  The trial judge granted Lititz summary judgment, finding that as a matter 
of law Atwell’s insurance policy did not cover her damages.   
Atwell proceeded 
 
4 
to trial against Reliable and Davis, which resulted in a mistrial.1  After settling with 
Davis, Atwell continued to a second trial against Reliable, as part of which 
Reliable prosecuted its third party action against Davis.      
Before the second trial, Atwell moved to preclude any disclosure to the jury 
that she had settled with Davis.  The trial judge denied that motion, ruling that 
Reliable could refer to the settlement but could not introduce evidence of the 
settlement amount.  Right before opening statements, the trial judge gave the 
following instruction: 
I have one additional instruction for you.  Now, at the beginning of 
this case, you heard a reference to another defendant that was in this 
case, that’s the defendant known as Mr. Davis.  Members of the jury, 
it is proper for you to know that one of the defendants is no longer in 
this case, but you need not and should not speculate why that person is 
no longer in the case.  Keep that in mind.  
 
The trial judge also instructed the jury that they were to “disregard any personal 
opinion or belief concerning the testimony or evidence which an attorney offers 
during the opening and closing statements.” 
Over Atwell’s objections, Reliable’s counsel referred to Davis’ settlement 
during opening and closing statements.  The first three references occurred in 
Reliable’s opening statement.  Reliable’s counsel first said: 
Now, when the plaintiffs filed this complaint against [Reliable and 
Lititz], Reliable then through me, filed a cross claim against Mr. 
                                          
 
1  
The record suggests that the jury voted eleven to one in favor of Atwell on the counts 
against Reliable and unanimously on the breach of contract claim against Davis. 
 
5 
Davis.  We’re essentially saying that we did nothing wrong.  If we’re 
found to be liable, it’s you Mr. Davis, who should pay the plaintiff her 
damages.  Essentially, at this point, since Mr. Davis has settled, you 
are not going to hear this part of the plaintiffs’ case.  [Plaintiffs’ 
counsel] has no incentive now to prove to you that Mr. Davis was at 
fault. 
 
The second reference occurred when Reliable’s counsel used a power point slide to 
display the former case caption to the jury while explaining Atwell’s claims 
against Davis.  The third reference consisted of Reliable’s counsel’s rhetorical 
question: “Where is Mr. Davis?  He’s a defendant in this case.  Where is he?  He 
has an obligation to defend our cross claim, and he’s chosen not to appear.” 
 
Reliable subpoenaed Davis, who testified at trial.  Reliable’s counsel 
examined Davis about the errors in his disclosures to Atwell.  Although Davis did 
not admit to any wrongdoing, his direct testimony buttressed Reliable’s claim that 
Davis had knowingly concealed problems with the home.  
The fourth (and final) reference to the settlement occurred in Reliable’s 
closing, when Reliable’s counsel stated:  
You recall also the testimony of Mr. Davis.  He essentially came in 
and fell on the sword.  I mean, he’s a nice fellow.  He has settled out; 
he doesn’t have a worry now in this case.  He’s not in jeopardy.  He 
essentially fell on the sword….  If there was a tortfeasor here, that the 
fraud was by Mr. Davis.  There was an intent by Mr. Davis to induce 
the [p]laintiff to buy the house, and it worked. 
 
 
During its deliberations, the jury sent the trial judge a written question.  
They asked: “If the jury answers zero dollars for question number four . . . does 
 
6 
question seven rely on that question?”  Question four concerned the amount of 
Atwell’s damages, and question seven instructed the jury to “state the percentage 
of liability you attribute to each defendant.”  The trial judge responded that if the 
jury found that the answer to question four was zero, then question seven would be 
irrelevant.  Later, the jury submitted two additional questions to the court: 
(1) 
 
Why do the instructions . . . say we have to decide on Davis’ 
 
liability if he has settled? 
 
(2) 
 
Our questions one, two, and three only refer to Reliable, so 
 
should we only be considering Reliable’s liability first? 
 
In response, the trial judge instructed the jury to examine the entirety of the 
relevant portion of the instructions, and answered yes to the second question.   
The jury later returned a unanimous verdict in Reliable’s favor on Atwell’s 
complaint.  Atwell moved for a new trial, which the trial judge denied.  This appeal 
followed.    
DISCUSSION 
I. 
The Trial Judge Did Not Err by Granting Lititz Summary Judgment. 
 
All the experts in this case agreed, and the trial judge found, that the 
subsurface water, which had infiltrated the sump area under the heater, caused the 
home’s high humidity level.  Accordingly, the trial judge determined that the issue 
underlying Atwell’s claims against Lititz involved only a legal issue – analyzing 
Atwell’s insurance policy to determine whether it afforded coverage for this 
 
7 
particular loss.  The trial judge determined that the “ensuing loss” clause in the 
insurance contract unambiguously and specifically excluded damage from mold 
and subsurface water.  The trial judge also determined that the structural damage to 
the home’s walls and ductwork was not a covered “ensuing loss,” but instead was a 
loss caused directly by the subsurface water and subsequent mold infiltration. 
Atwell claims that the trial judge erred by granting summary judgment to 
Lititz because: (1) the record was not sufficiently developed; (2) the record 
contained genuine issues of material fact; and (3) the dry rot, bacterial overgrowth 
and mold were “ensuing losses” that were covered by her policy.  We find no merit 
to these claims and affirm on the basis of the trial judge’s well reasoned ruling on 
summary judgment. 
II.  
Atwell is Entitled to a New Trial Against Reliable. 
 
Atwell argues that Reliable’s counsel improperly invoked Atwell and Davis’ 
settlement to suggest that Atwell’s claim against Reliable is meritless because 
Davis essentially admitted fault and that, therefore, the defendant actually at fault 
had compensated Atwell.  Reliable responds that its counsel’s statements were 
proper, but even if they were not, the trial judge’s instructions to disregard 
statements made by the attorneys cured any error.   
 
8 
We review a trial judge’s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of 
discretion.2  “We will find an abuse of discretion ‘if the jury verdict was against the 
great weight of evidence, no reasonable jury could have reached the result, and the 
denial was untenable and unreasonable.’”3 
As we explained in Wright v. Moore, “Rule 408 of the Delaware Rules of 
Evidence provides that evidence of a settlement is inadmissible to prove liability 
for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.”4  In Capital Management Co. v. 
Brown, we determined that “[t]wo principles underlie Rule 408: 1) the evidence of 
compromise is irrelevant since the offer may be motivated by a desire to terminate 
the litigation rather than from any concession of weakness of position; and 2) 
public policy favors compromise in settlement disputes.”5  We recognized, 
however, that “D.R.E. 408 does not require exclusion of settlement related 
evidence when the evidence is offered for another purpose.”6 
In particular, we have acknowledged the “need for the trial judge or the 
parties themselves to disclose to the jury the fact that a third party defendant had 
                                          
 
2  
Estate of Rae v. Murphy, 956 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Del. 2008). 
 
3  
Id. (quoting Wilhelm v. Ryan, 903 A.2d 745, 755 (Del.2006)). 
 
4  
931 A.2d 405, 407 (Del. 2007)(internal citations omitted). 
 
5  
Capital Management Co. v. Brown, 813 A.2d 1094, 1100 (Del. 2002). 
 
6  
Id. at 1100-01. 
 
 
9 
settled to avoid confusion.”7  “[T]he trial judge, however, must be more skeptical 
of the party’s purpose when a party seeks to admit evidence disclosing the facts of 
a settlement.”8 
We have addressed situations factually similar to the case at bar on several 
occasions.  First, in Capital Management, we held that the trial judge did not abuse 
his discretion by refusing to instruct the jury that a third party defendant was not 
present at trial because of a settlement.9  We noted “that questions about whether 
third party settlements will be admissible at trial or how the trial judge should 
explain alignment of the parties could best be resolved during pre-trial 
proceedings.”10   
In Alexander v. Cahill, we concluded that although it is permissible for a 
trial judge to disclose a third party settlement to the jury, the trial judge’s decision 
to admit testimony regarding the third party settlement in that case constituted 
reversible error.11  In Alexander, the plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against 
                                          
 
7  
Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A., 913 A.2d 519, 534 (Del. 
2006)(internal citations omitted). 
 
8  
Id. 
 
9 
Capital Management, 813 A.2d at 1100-01. 
 
10 
Id. at 1101.  
 
11 
829 A.2d 117, 122-28 (Del. 2003).  
 
 
10 
four defendants after a multiple vehicle accident.12  Two defendants settled, and the 
trial proceeded against the remaining two defendants.13  Defense counsel, 
questioning the plaintiff’s mother during cross examination, asked: “‘you and your 
husband have reached a settlement on behalf of your son against the Defendant[s] 
Knotts and Bermudez . . . and have or will receive moneys for releasing liabilities 
against them; is that right?  Alexander’s mother responded, ‘yes, sir.”’14  The trial 
judge instructed the jury not to consider the settlement in their verdict.15  The jury 
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, but attributed 98% of the liability to one 
of the settled parties.   
On appeal, we considered the trial judge’s reference to the settlement as well 
as defense counsel’s.  We followed the federal courts’ approach, concluding that a 
trial judge may disclose a third party settlement to the jury to avoid jury 
confusion.16  We determined that, in order to “inform the jury of the alignment of 
the parties[,]” a trial judge may tell the jury that one defendant has settled as long 
                                          
 
12 
Id. at 119.  
 
13 
Id. at 120.   
 
14 
Id. 
 
15 
Id.  
 
16  
See id. at 123-24. 
 
 
11 
as the judge instructs them not to speculate why that party settled.17  We 
concluded: “The trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he disclosed the fact 
of settlement to the jury, and would have been within his discretion if he had 
disclosed the fact of settlement to the jury at the outset of the trial.”18  Thus, it is 
within the trial judge’s discretion to instruct the jury of the fact of a settlement, at 
the outset of trial or during his jury instructions, to avoid jury confusion.  The 
amount of the settlement, however, must never be disclosed. 
In Alexander, we held that the trial judge abused his discretion by allowing 
defense counsel to elicit testimony about the plaintiff’s settlement with two of the 
defendants.19  We determined that “D.R.E. 408 bars this testimony because counsel 
asked the question for the purpose of persuading the jury that the persons to blame 
for the accident had already admitted liability, raising the question that the 
plaintiff’s claim against [the non-settled defendant] might be invalid or to limit a 
damage award” by implying that the plaintiff had already been fully compensated 
for his injuries.20  The risk of misleading the jury – because of speculation 
                                          
 
17 
Id. at 124.  
 
18 
Id. at 125.   
 
19 
Id. at 127 (“Q: Mrs. Alexander, you and your husband have reached a settlement on 
behalf of your son against Defendant Knotts and Bermudez ... and have or will receive moneys 
for releasing liabilities against them; is that right? A: Yes, sir.”).  
20 
Id. at 127.   
 
 
12 
regarding the compensation plaintiff received – outweighed the relevance of 
defense counsel’s questioning.21 
 
In Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A., we again addressed 
the propriety of disclosing to the jury the fact that a third party defendant had 
settled.22  Sammons involved a medical negligence claim against multiple 
defendants. 23  One defendant settled pretrial.24  At trial, the trial judge allowed 
defense counsel to refer to the plaintiff’s settlement during opening statements and 
closing arguments.25  During opening statements, defense counsel stated: “But the 
failure of the nursing staff is subsumed within the claim that the plaintiff brought 
against Christiana Care, which has been settled.”26  Again, in closing arguments, 
defense counsel stated: “But Christiana Care has settled.  They’re not here.  That’s 
their responsibility.”  We concluded that these statements did not require reversal, 
because those statements “did not reveal any amount of settlement and counsel 
used the statements to help the jury understand the alignment of the parties and to 
                                          
 
21 
Id.  
 
22  
See generally 913 A.2d 519. 
 
23 
Id. at 522-23. 
 
24 
Id. at 523 n.2. 
 
25 
Id. at 533.  
 
26 
Id. at 535. 
 
 
13 
determine pro rata fault, if applicable.”27  The trial judge specifically instructed the 
jury to determine whether the defendants remaining in the case were negligent and 
whether their negligence caused the plaintiff’s injury.  Thus, the trial judge did not 
abuse her discretion. 
 
Finally and most recently, we addressed this issue in Wright v. Moore.28  In 
Wright, the plaintiff filed a negligence action stemming from two separate car 
accidents against two separate defendants.29  One defendant settled pretrial and the 
trial proceeded against the remaining defendant.  The trial judge allowed defense 
counsel, over plaintiff’s objections, to refer to the settlement during opening 
statements and closing arguments, and also while examining witnesses.  The trial 
judge permitted defense counsel to question the plaintiff about the release given in 
connection with the settlement.30  In closing, defense counsel argued:  
And, in fact, [plaintiff] has been compensated for all those injuries 
laid out in that complaint, all the exact injuries she’s claiming against 
[the defendant at trial].  She’s compensated for her neck, for her back, 
for her knee, for her ankle, for her arm.  It’s all in the complaint.  It’s 
all right there [in the release].  
 
                                          
 
27 
Id.  
 
28 
Wright v. Moore, 931 A.2d 405 (Del. 2007). 
 
29 
Id. at 406.   
 
30 
Id. at 407. 
   
 
14 
The jury returned a defense verdict, and we reversed.  We concluded that defense 
counsel used his questioning about the release and his comments in closing not to 
avoid jury confusion, but instead to suggest that a settling party had fully 
compensated the plaintiff – “[b]oth the questions and the closing comments were 
highly improper.”31 
 
Here, the trial judge properly acted within his discretion by instructing the 
jury that one defendant “was no longer in the case” and that they should not 
speculate why.  This instruction is permissible to define the alignment of the 
parties and to avoid confusing the jury.  When necessary, the trial judge may 
instruct the jury that a party has settled but that they should not speculate why.  
Our decision in Sammons, however, permits trial judges to allow counsel to refer to 
the settlement in opening statements and closing arguments only after counsel tells 
the judge what counsel intends to say, so that the trial judge can assess the purpose 
of the reference.   
 
We conclude that Reliable’s closing arguments exceeded the “proper 
purpose” boundaries.  Although not as explicit or egregious as the comments made 
in Wright (where counsel argued that a settlement had fully compensated the 
plaintiff), the closing argument here clearly implied that Davis had admitted 
liability by settling.  Reliable’s claim that Davis “fell on the sword” implied that 
                                          
 
31 
Id. at 408.   
 
 
15 
Davis admitted liability and suggested that Davis’ taking the blame rendered the 
current claims against Reliable invalid.  “Falling on the sword” conjures thoughts 
of admission and resignation to fault, as if Davis had admitted liability. That could 
invite the jury to infer that any claims remaining against Reliable were unfounded.  
This goes well beyond the limited, permitted mention of settlements to inform the 
jury of the alignment of the parties because it flatly contradicts the policy limiting 
references to settlement articulated by the principles outlined in Capital 
Management.  Here, as in Alexander, Reliable’s closing argument had the “purpose 
of persuading the jury that the persons to blame for the accident had already 
admitted liability, raising the question that the plaintiff’s claim against [the non-
settling defendant] might be invalid or to limit a damage award.”32   
The trial judge’s instruction that statements of counsel were not evidence did 
not cure Reliable’s counsel’s improper statement.  Although “[j]uries are presumed 
to follow the trial judge’s instructions,” the jury’s questions while deliberating 
demonstrated that Reliable’s injection of the settlement into the case confused 
them.33  The jury asked: “If the jury answers zero dollars for question number four 
for both plaintiff . . . does question seven rely on that question.  The trial court 
                                          
 
32 
See Alexander, 829 A.2d at 127. 
 
33  
Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23, 28 (Del. 2008). 
 
 
16 
responded: “If that is your answer to question four, question seven is irrelevant and 
need not be answered.”34  The jury also asked the following questions: 
(1)  
Why do the instructions on page 32 say we have to decide on 
 
Davis’ liability if he has settled? 
(2)  
Our questions one, two, and three only refer to Reliable, so 
 
should we only be considering Reliable’s liability first? 
Although generally “[d]isclosing settlement explains the absence of the settling 
defendants and thus tends to reduce jury confusion,” these questions show that 
Reliable’s mention of the settlement had actually created jury confusion.35  The 
jury’s questions demonstrate that they were taking the settlement into account 
                                          
 
34  
The Special Interrogatories to the Jury read as follows: 
Question 1: Do you find be preponderance of the evidence that the 
defendant Reliable was negligent in a manner that approximately caused 
the plaintiffs’ damages? 
Question 2: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
defendant Reliable made negligent misrepresentations in violation of the 
Delaware Consumer Fraud Statute in a manner that proximately caused 
plaintiff’s damages? 
Question 3: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
defendant Reliable breached its contract in a manner that proximately 
caused the plaintiffs’ damages? 
Question 4: If your answer to any of these questions one through three is 
yes, please state the amount of damages 
Question 5: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that 
Defendant Davis’ actions were negligent in a manner that proximately 
caused the plaintiffs’ damages?  
Question 6: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that 
Defendant Davis’ actions were fraudulent in a manner that proximately 
caused the Plaintiffs’ damages? 
Question 7: If you answer to 1 or 2 and 5 or 6 is “Yes”, please state the 
percentage of liability that you attribute to each Defendant.  The assigned 
percentages must total 100%.  
 
35  
Alexander, 829 A.2d at 123. 
 
 
17 
when contemplating Reliable’s liability and potential payout, despite having been 
told that they were not to speculate about why Davis “was no longer in the case.”   
 
We cannot allow litigants to imply that one party’s decision to settle means 
that the settling party has admitted liability.  Permitting counsel to suggest that 
settlement amounts to admitting fault discourages parties from settling – 
particularly in cases where the jury will be tasked with attributing a specific 
percentage of liability to multiple defendants. If the remaining parties are allowed 
to use the fact of settlement by a co-defendant to suggest that the settled party fully 
compensated the plaintiff, neither the party settling, who remains as a third party 
defendant, nor the non-settling trial party plaintiff, will have any incentive to settle 
in the first place.  
 
We recognize that, in certain complex cases, there may be times when the 
parties may need to explain a party’s absence from the trial.  We also recognize the 
difficulty of resolving third party claims when the jury’s main focus is on the 
defendant present in the courtroom.  However, because here the settling party, 
Davis, testified, Reliable had ample opportunity to develop its’ third party claim on 
the factual merits.  Reliable did not need to refer to the fact that Davis had settled 
to argue that the jury should infer Davis’ liability from the facts of the case alone. 
 
Although trial judges have broad discretion in deciding whether to allow the 
parties to refer to a settlement, this case demonstrates the need for counsel to 
 
18 
disclose in advance how counsel intends to use that reference before the jury and 
for trial judges to provide counsel with clearly defined parameters of what they 
may tell the jury about an absent party.  Here, the trial judge merely instructed 
Reliable’s counsel not to mention the specific settlement amount, and 
optimistically told counsel to “be careful.” Beyond that, the trial judge did not 
otherwise set any clear boundaries.  The trial judge had no forewarning of 
Reliable’s counsel’s intended statements about the significance of settlement.  Had 
the trial judge been so advised, he could then have accessed its impact, crafted an 
appropriate instruction and barred the parties from suggesting to the jury any 
inappropriate interpretation of the significance of Davis having settled.       
CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and 
REMAND for a new trial.