Opinion ID: 2395601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Nationwide's Contention Reformation Unnecessary

Text: Nationwide has taken the same position in this case that was asserted alternatively by State Farm in Wagamon, to wit: that the household exclusion should be upheld beyond the statutory minimum amount of liability coverage required by Delaware law, $15,000 per person, $30,000 per accident. Nationwide contends that this Court did not uphold State Farm's alternative position in Wagamon because, since the household exclusion in the State Farm policy was absolute, this Court would not reform the State Farm policy to read like the modified household exclusion in the Nationwide policy at issue in this appeal. Nationwide's opening brief states: Since reformation of the policy is not sought or required in the instant case, however, as the limitation on coverage at issue applies only to coverage in excess of the requirements of the Financial Responsibility Law, there is no conflict or inconsistency between the position taken by Nationwide here and the rulings of this Court in Harris [2] and Universal Underwriters. [3] Building upon its analysis of the ratio decidendi in Wagamon, Nationwide argues there is no need for this Court to reform its policy language, because the policy is already written in the form of a modified household exclusion.