Thomas v. American Motorist Insurance Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY LAURA THOMAS, Defendant - Below Appellant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. AMERICAN MOTORIST INS. CO., as Subrogee of Michael K. Williams and Linda Williams, Plaintiff - Below) Appellee. C.A. No. 00A-03-008 ) Date Submitted: May 7, 2001 Date Decided: October 12, 2001 ORDER UPON LAURA THOMAS MOTION FOR REARGUMENT DENIED On this 21st day of August, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff s Motion for Reargument, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 30, 2001, the Court entered judgment for American Motorist Ins. Thomas v. American Motorist Ins. Co. C.A. No. 00A-03-008 October 12, 2001 Page 2 Co. ( American ) allowing them as a no-fault insurer to seek subrogation reimbursement from the tortfeasor. The Court found there was substantial evidence to support that American paid the insured s medical expenses resulting from the accident with the tortfeasor. In her motion, Plaintiff does not challenge this Court s ruling, but rather casts doubts on this Court s citation to Harper v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., Del. Supr. 703 A.3d 136, 141 (1997). (2) On motion for reargument the only issue is whether the [C]ourt overlooked something that would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision. 1 A motion for reargument is not intended to rehash arguments already decided by the [C]ourt. 2 Nor is it a device for raising new arguments or stringing out the length of time for making an 1 McElroy v. Shell Petroleum, Inc., Del. Super., No. 375, 1992, Moore, J. (Nov. 24, 1992) (ORDER). 2 Id. Thomas v. American Motorist Ins. Co. C.A. No. 00A-03-008 October 12, 2001 Page 3 argument. 3 A party seeking to have the Court consider the earlier ruling must demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a change in the law or manifest injustice. 4 3 Eisenmann Corp. v. General Motors Corp., C.A. No. 99C-07-260, Quillen, J. (Feb. 24, 2000) (Letter Op.). 4 State v. Spicer, Del. Super., C.A. Nos. 98M-12-008, 98M-12-009, Stokes, J. (May 11, 1999) (ORDER) (quoting E.I. duPont de Nemours Co. v. Admiral Ins.. Co., Del Super., 711 A.2d 45, 55 (1995)). Thomas v. American Motorist Ins. Co. C.A. No. 00A-03-008 October 12, 2001 Page 4 (3) The issues raised in Plaintiff s Motion for Reargument were considered by the Court in making its original decision. An insurer has a statutory right to reimbursement through subrogation of the rights of its insured; however that right is limited where the tortfeasor s liability carrier is involved. 5 Nothing in Delaware s no-fault statute excludes an insurer from suing a tortfeasor directly when the tortfeasor lacks liability insurance.6 Therefore, Plaintiff s Motion for Reargument is DENIED. For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff s Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________________ ALFORD, J. Prothonotary s Office - Civil Div. 5 Nationwide Mutual Ins. co. v. Wooters, Del. Super., C.A. No. 93C-02-029, Bifferato, R.J. (Jan. 31, 1996) (Mem. Op.). 6 See 10 Del. C. ยง 2118(g)
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.
