Brebner v. Wilmington Insurance Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COU NTY C OUR THO USE RESIDENT JUDGE 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 (302) 856-5257 September 18, 2012 Mary E. Sherlock, Esquire Weber, Gallagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires & Newby, LLP 19 South State Street, Suite 100 Dover, Delaware 19901 Re: Richard E. Berl, Jr., Esquire Smith Feinberg M cCartney & Berl, LLP 406 South Bedford Street P.O. Box 588 Georgetown, Delaware 19947 Brebner v. Wilmington Insurance Co.; C.A. No. S11C-02-030 Dear Counsel: Defendant s Motion for Re-Argument is denied. I am satisfied I did not overlook something that would have changed the outcome of the Court s September 4, 2012, decision on the cross-motions for summary judgm ent. McElroy v. Shell Petroleum, Inc., 618 A .2d 91 (Del. 1992). You both made your positions clear. I ruled that the radiator did not fall into the water pipe limitation of loss. I also ruled that, to the extent this was an ambiguity, the confusion would require a ruling against the insurer. Henceforth, the insurer can make it clear as to the loss limitation. The motion to re-argue is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, T. Henley Graves oc: Prothonotary 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
