Opinion ID: 2445685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Superior Court Proceeding

Text: The Clearwater Policy provided coverage for a 2002 Volvo truck tractor, which was registered and insured pursuant to title 18, section 3902 of the Delaware Code. Endorsement Number Six, titled Uninsured Motorist Insurance Endorsement, provides that: A. COVERAGE We will pay compensatory damages which an insured, is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an Uninsured Motor Vehicle because of Bodily Injury: (1) Sustained by an insured; and (2) Caused by an accident. B. WHO IS INSURED (1) Named Insured. (2) Anyone else occupying a covered auto. [1] Castillo filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment from the Delaware Superior Court that Clearwater was obligated to provide UIM benefits under the Clearwater Policy. In its opposition to that motion, Clearwater argued the Clearwater Policy did not apply for several reasons. First, Clearwater relied upon an endorsement titled TruckersInsurance for Non-Trucking Use, which provided as follows: Liability Coverage for a covered auto described in the Schedule is changed as follows: 1. The following exclusions are added: This insurance does not apply to: a. A covered auto while used to carry property in any business. b. A covered auto while used in the business of anyone to whom the auto is rented. Second, Clearwater relied upon Endorsement Number Four, which provided as follows: PROPERTY The transportation of property by auto for the generation of economic gain or commercial benefit is defined as business property, and such transportation is outside the scope of coverage afforded in this policy. Third, Clearwater argued that the title of the certificate provided with the policy limited coverage. The certificate was titled Certificate of Non-Trucking Automobile Liability Insurance. The Superior Court ruled that the Clearwater Policy was valid and characterized that Policy as a contract whose scope was limited, as distinguished from a UIM exclusion, which the Superior Court recognized would be invalid under title 18, section 3902. Because the Superior Court found there were material issues of fact in dispute, however, it initially declined to dismiss Castillo's complaint. The parties then filed a proposed Stipulation and Final Order (the Stipulated Order) with the Superior Court. The Stipulated Order provided that the parties agreed there were no issues of material fact; that Castillo was operating his vehicle pursuant to a lease agreement with International Motor Freight (IMF), was in the business of IMF and under IMF's direction, control and dispatch at the time of the December 7, 2005 accident; and that the Superior Court decision was a final decision that resolved the entire case in favor of Clearwater and against Castillo. The Stipulated Order, was entered as a final judgment by the Superior Court.