Court Opinion

ID: 9927425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-27 03:01:46.713305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:37.797622
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE                  )
COMPANY,                                 )
                                         )
     Defendant Below/Appellant,          )
                                         )
           v.                            )     C.A. No. N23C-08-084 FWW
                                         )
HENRY HAMILTON,                          )
                                         )
      Plaintiff Below/Appellee.          )

                         Submitted: January 25, 2024
                          Decided: January 26, 2024

      Upon the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Below/Appellee
                             Henry Hamilton
                                DENIED.

     Upon the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Below/Appellant
                     USAA Casualty Insurance Company
                                DENIED.

                                  ORDER

M. Claire McCudden, Esquire, and Lisa M. Grubb, Esquire, MARSHALL
DENNEHEY, P.C., 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 600, P.O. Box 8888,
Wilmington, DE 19899-8888, Attorneys for Defendant Below/Appellant USAA
Casualty Insurance Company.

Brian E. Lutness, Esquire, SILVERMAN, MCDONALD & FRIEDMAN,
Brandywine East Plaza, 1523 Concord Pike, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19803,
attorney for Plaintiff Below/Appellee Henry Hamilton.

WHARTON, J.
      This 26th day of January, 2024, upon consideration of the Motion for

Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Below/Appellee Henry Hamilton (“Hamilton”),1

the Response in Opposition to Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

Appellee’s Request for Summary Judgment of USAA Casualty Insurance Company

(“USAA”),2 and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

      1.     On August 9, 2023, USAA appealed to this Court from a Decision of

the Arbitration Panel of the Insurance Commission.3 The Docket shows that

Hamilton served interrogatories and a request for production on USSA on September

13, 2023,4 summons were signed and picked up by USSA’s attorneys to serve

themselves on September 28th,5 and then…nothing. Finally, on December 14th, the

Court sent a stall letter to counsel.6

      2.     USAA responded first on December 27th.7 It recited the filing of the

appeal, service on Hamilton, and service of Hamilton’s discovery requests on it.8

Then, it noted, “As of this date, no Complaint or other pleading has been filed.” 9

1
  Hamilton’s Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 7.
2
  USAA’s Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 13.
3
  D.I. 1.
4
  D.I. 2.
5
  D.I. 3.
6
  D.I. 4.
7
  D.I. 5.
8
  Id.
9
  Id.
                                        2
The Court noted USAA’s letter and stated that it awaited further action by either

party.10

      3.      The next action by either party was Hamilton’s Motion for Summary

Judgment.11 The motion explains how Hamilton came to be injured when the ladder

he had placed in the bed of his truck and against the wall of a garage at Hilton Marine

slipped when he was attempting to fix rotten wood over the garage.12 As a result of

these undisputed facts, Hamilton argues that USAA, as his PIP carrier, is obligated

to compensate him for his injuries.13

      4.      USAA was directed to respond.14 It did on January 25, 2024, opposing

Hamilton’s summary judgment motion and requesting summary judgment in its

favor.15 USAA, argues that under the facts set out by Hamilton, his injuries were in

no way caused by the use or operation of the vehicle, entitling it to summary

judgment.16

      5.      An unsuccessful party before an automobile arbitration panel of the

Department of Insurance “shall have a right to appeal de novo to the Superior Court

if notice of such appeal is filed with that Court in the manner set forth by its rules

10
   D.I. 6.
11
   Hamilton’s Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 7.
12
   Id. at ⁋⁋ 1, 2.
13
   Id. at ⁋⁋ 3,4.
14
   D.I. 12.
15
   USAA’s Resp.to Mot. for Summ. J., D.I. 13.
16
   Id. at ⁋ 8.
                                         3
within 30 days of the date of the decision being rendered.”17 Appeals de novo are

governed by Superior Court Civil Rule 3(c):

            (c) Appeals De Novo. When an appeal de novo is
            permitted by law, an action is commenced in the Superior
            Court by the appellant filing with the Prothonotary a
            praecipe within the time prescribed by statute for the filing
            of an appeal. If no time is prescribed by statute, the
            praecipe shall be filed within 15 days from the entry of the
            final judgment, order, or disposition from which an appeal
            is permitted by law. When the appellant is the party having
            the duty of filing the complaint or other first pleading on
            appeal, the appellant shall file such pleading with
            praecipe. When the appellee is the party having the
            duty of filing the complaint or other first pleading on
            appeal, the appellee shall serve a copy of such pleading
            within 20 days after service of the process on appeal,
            or if appellee has not been served, within 40 days after
            the date of the process, and thereafter the pleadings
            shall proceed as in other actions.18

      6.    Hamilton never filed a complaint on appeal. Because there is no

complaint, there is nothing upon which the Court may grant judgment for either

party. Accordingly, both motions for summary judgment are DENIED.19

17
   21 Del. C. § 2118(j)(5).
18
   Super. Ct. Civil R. 3(c) (emphasis added).
19
   Given the basis for the Court’s decision and because it denies USSA’s motion for
summary judgment, it finds it unnecessary to solicit Hamilton’s response.
                                          4
     THEREFORE, Plaintiff Below/Appellee Henry Hamilton’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant Below/Appellant USAA Casualty

Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                            /s/ Ferris W. Wharton
                                             Ferris W. Wharton, J.

                                   5