Court Opinion

ID: 9378474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 17:03:16.745467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.642594
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GERALD WILLIAMSON and         )
TANYA WILLIAMSON, Husband and )
Wife,                         )
                              )
      Plaintiffs,             )
                              )                   C.A. No. N22C-03-196 CLS
             v.               )
                              )
THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and      )
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT            )
INSURANCE COMPANY,            )
                              )
      Defendants.

                         Date Submitted: January 3, 2023
                          Date Decided: March 8, 2023

       Upon Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. DENIED.

                                      ORDER

Vincent A. Bifferato, Jr., Esquire, and Ran Ji, Esquire, Bifferato Gentilotti LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware, 19805, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Gerald and Tanya
Williamson.

Walter J. O’Brien, Esquire, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby
LLP, New Castle, Delaware, 19702, Attorney for Defendant, The Home Depot,
Inc.

Steven F. Mones, Esquire, Casarino Christman Shalk Ransom & Doss, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware, 19899, Attorney for Progressive Direct Insurance
Company.

SCOTT, J.

                                          1
      This 8th day of March 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Home Depot’s

(“Home Depot”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Plaintiffs Gerald and Tanya

Williamson’s (“Mr. and Mrs. Williamson”) Response, and Defendant Progressive

Direct Insurance Company’s (“Progressive”) Response, it appears to the Court that:

      1. On March 24, 2020, Mr. and Mrs. Williamson allege, while Mr.

         Williamson operated a vehicle owned by Home Depot, to have been struck

         by a vehicle driven by non-party Wesley Boyd Johnson.

      2. Mr. and Mrs. Williamson rented the subject vehicle from Home Depot

         pursuant to a rental agreement. In the agreement Mr. Williamson

         confirmed “automobile insurance that covers my operation of non-owned

         vehicles included the rental vehicle; and that my liability insurance is

         primary.” Mr. Williamson identified Progressive Policy 926165535, which

         had an expiration date of June 10, 2020.

      3. Progressive admits the policy was valid and covered Mr. Williamson at the

         time of the accident.

      4. A party may move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civil Rule

         12(c).1 In determining a motion under Civil Rule 12(c) for judgment on the

1
 Civil Rule 12(c) provides:
Motion for judgment on the pleadings.—After the pleadings are closed but within
such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the
pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the
                                        2
         pleadings, the Court is required to view the facts pleaded and the inferences

         to be drawn from such facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving

         party.2 The Court must take the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint

         as admitted.3 When considering a motion under Civil Rule 12(c), the Court

         also assumes the truthfulness of all well-plead allegations of fact in the

         complaint.4 The Court must, therefore, accord plaintiffs opposing a Rule

         12(c) motion the same benefits as a plaintiff defending a motion under

         Civil Rule 12(b)(6).5 The Court may grant a motion for judgment on the

         pleadings only when no disputed facts and the movant is entitled to

         judgment as a matter of law.6

      5. Home Depot argues an order of a rental vehicle is not responsible for

         insuring the vehicle, up to the stated limits, because it properly shifted

pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the motion shall be
treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and
all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made
pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
Del.Super. Civ. R. 12(c).
2
  See Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Leveraged Equity Fund, II, L.P., 624
A.2d 1199, 1205 (Del.1993); see also Warner Commc'ns, Inc. v. Chris–Craft
Indus., Inc., 583 A.2d 962, 965 (Del.Super.), aff'd without opinion, 567 A.2d 419
(Del.1989).
3
  See Desert Equities, Inc., 624 A.2d at 1205; Warner Commc'ns Inc., 583 A.2d at
965.
4
  McMillan v. Intercargo Corp., 768 A.2d 492, 500 (Del. Ch. 2000).
5
  Id.
6
  See Desert Equities, Inc., 624 A.2d at 1205; Warner Commc'ns Inc., 583 A.2d at
965.
                                         3
   responsibility to the renter. By shifting the responsibility of providing

   liability insurance to the renter/driver, Home Depot argues, Mr. and Mrs.

   Williamson’s insurer became the primary insurer for the vehicle relieving

   Home Depot of liability.

6. Mr. and Mrs. Williamson argue that as a result of the accident, Mr.

   Williamson obtained no-fault benefits from Home Depot as the primary

   no-fault carrier even though such coverage was not contained in the rental

   agreement. Mr. and Mrs. Williamson contend the rental agreement

   contains no reference to underinsured motorist coverage. Additionally, Mr.

   and Mrs. Williamson admit the Home Depot shifted liability to make Mr.

   Williamson’s insurance primary, however, they argue Home Depot’s

   coverage is secondary. Meaning if damages exceed $50,000 (the total from

   Wesley Boyd Johnson’s limits plus Mr. Williamson’s underinsured

   motorist benefits from his personal Progressive Policy), then he should be

   able to reach Home Depot’s underinsured motorist coverage (“UM”).

7. Progressive takes no position on this Motion.

8. Motion of Judgement on the Pleadings is not proper at this time as there

   are disputed facts and Home Depot is not entitled to judgment as a matter

   of law.

                                  4
     9. While not discussed by counsel, in this matter, Home Depot is required

        under the statute to provide Lessee with UM coverage so that any innocent

        victims of uninsured motorists, such as the Plaintiffs, have protection.

        Home Depot could deny UM coverage, like denying insurance by

        following Miller v. Fidelity Guaranty Ins. Underwriters7 or United Service

        Auto. Assoc. v. Avis Rent–A–Car, Inc.8 In Miller, this Court held that

        pursuant to 21 Del. C. § 6102 and 21 Del. C. § 2118(a), the owner of a

        rental car has the duty to either provide PIP coverage or ensure that

        coverage is in effect by taking steps to guarantee that the renter has

        coverage, thereby shifting the responsibility to the renter.9 Miller further

        held that a rental agency's mere inquiry as to the renter's coverage is

        insufficient; the agency must make sure that the insurance is in effect.10

        Under the Miller standard, the only way in which Home Depot would be

        able to deny such UM coverage would be if Mr. Williamson upon being

        fully informed of his right to UM coverage expressly rejected such in

        writing after Home Depot’s verification Mr. Williamson was otherwise

        insured. Home Depot makes no reference to evidence of Mr. Williamson’s

7
  2002 WL 32067544 (Del.Super.Oct.31, 2002).
8
  2005 WL 3416299 (Del.Super.Nov.18, 2005).
9
  Miller, 2002 WL 32067544 at *3.
10
   Id.
                                        5
         knowledge regarding his right to coverage or the steps it took to verify that

         alternative coverage existed but merely provides a signed agreement that

         refers to a boilerplate provision of Vehicle Loss and Damage. Such

         provision does not make any mention to UM coverage and as such, no

         rejection of UM coverage occurred. Additionally, it is insufficient to

         demonstrate that Home Depot took steps to verify that Mr. Williamson had

         his own UM coverage. Under Miller, Home Depot has not presented

         evidence of its steps to took to ensure that Mr. Williamson had coverage.

      10. In Avis, the Court found that there was no need to “specifically ask the

         renter whether he ha[d] other available insurance and obtain his

         confirmation” in a situation where the agreement assured that the renter

         would be covered even if he did not.11 Further explaining, “the car rental

         company's ability to shift the primary burden from itself to other available

         insurance exists only where the car rental company does insure the

         vehicle.”12 The Vehicle Loss and Damage provision at issue, here, does

         not provide such assurance of coverage by Home Depot.

      11.In Jenkins v. Wilson13, involving an insurance coverage dispute arising

         from an accident involving a rental car in which an insurer, the

11
   Avis Rent–A–Car, Inc., 2005 WL 3416299 at *2.
12
   Id.
13
   2012 WL 1408885 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 30, 2012)
                                         6
         uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage carrier for the lessee of the

         rental car, filed an action against the Rental Company for contribution and

         indemnification.14 This Court applied the Miller standard to Delaware's

         UM statute because Avis did not apply, like these facts. The Jenkins Court

         found that, if the Rental Company failed to take steps to verify the

         existence of alternative UM coverage for Lessee, the Rental Company

         violated its statutory duty.15 Accordingly, if such occurrence happened, in

         Rental Company “would be required to provide UM coverage under

         Delaware's UM statute. Such a rule of law complies with the Legislative

         intent to have UM coverage ‘as a matter of course’ in Delaware.”16

      12. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is, therefore, appropriately

         DENIED because a factual record has not been established as to whether

         Home Depot took appropriate steps to verify UM coverage.

      13. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the

         Pleadings is DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.
                                                   /s/ Calvin L. Scott
                                                   Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.

14
   Jenkins, 2012 WL 1408885 at *1.
15
   Id. at *6.
16
   Id.
                                         7