Title: Walden v. Allstate Insurance
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 487, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 27, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH AND SHARON 
WALDEN, 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
ALLSTATE INSURANCE  
COMPANY,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 487, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 05C-12-111 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 26, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 27, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 27th day of October 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiffs-appellants, Kenneth and Sharon Walden (the 
“Waldens”), filed an appeal from the Superior Court’s August 29, 2006 
order dismissing their complaint against the defendant-appellee, Allstate 
Insurance Company.  Allstate has moved to affirm the judgment of the 
Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In December 2005, the Waldens filed a complaint in the 
Superior Court against Allstate.  They alleged personal injuries as the result 
of living in a moldy rental unit owned by Robert and Lucille Prato.  Allstate 
is the insurer for the Pratos.  Allstate moved to dismiss the complaint against 
it on the ground that, under Delaware law, an injured third party may not 
prosecute a direct action against a liability insurer on the basis of the alleged 
negligence of an insured before a determination of the insured’s liability.1  
The Superior Court granted Allstate’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice, 
on that ground. 
 
(3) 
We conclude that the Superior Court’s action was proper.  
While constituting a final judgment for purposes of the instant appeal, the 
Superior Court’s dismissal, without prejudice, will not operate as a res 
judicata bar to preclude a subsequent lawsuit on the same cause of action.2  
Thus, should the Pratos’ liability for the injuries allegedly suffered by the 
Waldens be established, the Waldens may renew their claims against 
Allstate.   
 
 
                                          
 
1 Kaufmann v. McKeown, 193 A.2d 81, 83 (Del. 1963); Delmar News, Inc. v. Jacobs Oil 
Co., 584 A.2d 531, 533-34 (Del. Super. 1990).  The record reflects that the Waldens also 
filed an action directly against the Pratos, which is now pending in the Superior Court. 
2 Braddock v. Zimmerman, 906 A.2d 776 (Del. 2006) (en Banc). 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice