Clark, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY REBECCA CLARK and JAMES SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 14C-02-188-JRJ CCLD ) ) ) ) ) ) Date Submitted: March 30, 2015 Date Decided: June 23, 2015 ORDER Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”) Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I (Declaratory Judgment) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 1. On February 20, 2014, Plaintiffs Rebecca Clark and James Smith, and and others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), filed a Proposed Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against State Farm, which included four counts: (1) Declaratory Judgment; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Bad Faith Breach of Contract; and (4) Statutory Consumer Fraud.1 All four counts were based on Plaintiffs’ 1 Compl. (Trans. ID. 55029446). 1 allegations that State Farm had improperly deducted statutory interest payments from Plaintiffs’ Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) coverage limits in their automobile policies, in violation of 21 Del. C. § 2118B.2 2. On June 19, 2014, State Farm filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“June 19 Motion for Summary Judgment”). 3 3. On August 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 15(a).4 Count I of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint (“PAC”) sought a declaratory judgment against State Farm for improperly deducting statutory interest payments, a claim identical to Count I of the Complaint.5 In Count II of the PAC, Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm violated 21 Del. C. § 2118B by adopting an improper practice of delaying processing, payment, and denial of claims for PIP. 6 4. On October 14, 2014, the Court granted State Farm’s June 19 Motion for Summary Judgment on all four counts of the Complaint (“October 14 Order”)7 because Plaintiffs advised the Court that they would not contest State Farm’s 2 See id. See Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Trans. ID. 55616863) (“Def.’s Mot. Sum. J.”). 4 See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Trans. ID. 55914810). See also Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Their Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Trans. ID. 55914810) (“Pls.’ Op. Br.”). 5 Pls.’ Op. Br., Ex. A ¶¶ 26–33. 6 Id. ¶¶ 34–43. 7 See Oct. 14, 2014 Order Granting Summary Judgment (Trans. ID. 56191706). 3 2 motion.8 On October 15, 2014, however, the Court modified the October 14 Order by deferring ruling on Count I (Declaratory Judgment) until after the pending Motion for Leave to Amend was resolved.9 5. On March 30, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, finding that Plaintiffs failed to plead an immediate, or about to be immediate, controversy between the parties. 10 The Court found Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief amounted to a request for an advisory or hypothetical opinion.11 6. Thus, State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of the original Complaint is now ripe. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, the Court must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist. 12 The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact so that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 13 The Court must view all factual inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. 14 Summary judgment will not be granted if it appears that there 8 Plaintiffs’ Oct. 8, 2014 Letter to the Court (Trans. ID. 56163554). See Oct. 15, 2014 Modified Order Granting Summary Judgment (Trans. ID. 56201342). 10 Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1518662, at *4 (Del. Super. 2015). 11 Id. 12 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); Wilm. Trust Co. v. Aetna, 690 A.2d 914, 916 (Del. 1996). 13 Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979). 14 Alabi v. DHL Airways, Inc., 583 A.2d 1358, 1361 (Del. 1990). 9 3 is a material fact in dispute or that further inquiry into the facts would be appropriate. 15 7. As noted above, Count I of the Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that State Farm was deducting statutory interest payments from PIP limits in violation of 21 Del. C. § 2118B.16 Count I of the Complaint relies on a theory the Plaintiffs are no longer pursuing. 17 Consequently, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute with regard to Count I of the Complaint. WHEREFORE, State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________ Jan R. Jurden, President Judge 15 Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. Super. 1962), rev’d in part on procedural grounds and aff’d in part, 208 A.2d 495 (Del. 1965). 16 Compl. ¶¶ 26–33. 17 Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed this at oral argument on October 15, 2014, by advising the Court that they were no longer pursuing Count I of the PAC, which was based on the theory that State Farm deducted statutory interest payments from Plaintiffs’ PIP benefits, which is identical to Count I of the Complaint. See Oral Arg. Tr. at 46–47 (Trans. ID. 56313425). See also Plaintiffs’ Oct. 8, 2014 Letter to the Court (Trans. ID. 56163554). 4

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.