Opinion ID: 2328678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Seeman Decision

Text: In Seeman, we concluded that any household exclusion in a Delaware automobile insurance policy is void and unenforceable based on the established precedents of this Court... [9] Seeman is distinguishable from the matter sub judice because a material distinction exists between a primary motor vehicle liability policy and a personal liability umbrella policy that provides excess coverage for automobile accidents as well as a multitude of other risks. Both policies provided coverage by contract, but only the former comes within the ambit of the Financial Responsibility Law. The trial judge no doubt recognized that distinction but confronted with compelling arguments by both parties and the fact that Seeman referred to automobile insurance policy and not motor vehicle liability policy, a statutory term of art, simply overbroadly interpreted Seeman's application to the facts of this case. While we understand why the trial judge expanded Seeman's scope, we believe it to be improvident for this Court to invade the province of the General Assembly and expand the ambit of the Financial Responsibility Laws on a record that does not address the myriad of societal issues that must be considered before altering private contracts post hoc on public policy grounds. A legislative body is far better suited to gather and weigh the legislative facts [10] and hear the arguments of those interested parties over the costs and benefits of extending the policy underlying the Delaware Financial Responsibility Law to excess automobile accident coverage in personal liability umbrella policies. [11] As we see it, in the absence of a clear legislative pronouncement, this dispute should be resolved as a simple matter of private contract.