Cullen v. Dudley, et al. / Dudley v. Farm Family Casualty Insurance Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY JAMES M. CULLEN, III, ) ) C.A. No. K10C-05-008 JTV Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MARK E. DUDLEY, and FARM ) FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) MARK E. DUDLEY, Plaintiff, v. FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT ) and ) COMPLAINT FOR ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ) PURSUANT TO 10 Del. C. ) CHAPTER 65 ) ) Defendant. Submitted: February 15, 2013 Decided: May 29, 2013 Scott E. Chambers, Esq., Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Plaintiff Cullen. Scott L. Silar, Esq, Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Dudley. Mary E. Sherlock, Esq., Weber, Gallagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires & Newby, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Farm Family. Upon Plaintiff s Motion for Reargument DENIED VAUGHN, President Judge ORDER Upon consideration of the third-party plaintiff s Motion for Reargument, the third-party defendant s opposition, and the record of the case, it appears that: 1. The third-party plaintiff, Mark Dudley, moves to reargue this Court s decision dated January 29, 2013 awarding declaratory judgment in favor of the thirdparty defendant, Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company. In that opinion, the Court held that Dudley was not an insured under his grandparents umbrella insurance policy issued by Farm Family, because he was not a resident of the grandparents household. In coming to that conclusion, the Court determined that the term household was unambiguous, and that it meant those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family. 2. In applying that definition to the facts of the case, the Court held that Dudley was not a resident of the grandparents household, because they did not live under the same roof rather, Dudley lived in a separate apartment above a detached garage located twenty feet away from the main house where the grandparents lived. The Court noted that it was aware that there is authority that persons do not have to reside under the same roof to be members of the same household, and specifically 2 Cullen, et al. v. Dudley, et al. C.A. No. K10C-05-008 JTV May 29, 2013 cited the New Jersey Supreme Court case of Mazzilli v. Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur, Switzerland1 for that proposition. However, the Court concluded that it was persuaded that the conclusion that Dudley and his grandparents did not live in the same household is the proper conclusion in this case. 3. In his motion for reargument, Dudley simply contends that [t]his Court should have applied the holding in the Mazilli case to the instant case because the facts are more similar to this case than any Delaware holdings. Farm Family opposes Dudley s motion and contends that the facts of Mazzilli are distinguishable, and that the Court used the proper definition of household, which was originally defined in this Court s decision in Engerbretsen v. Engerbretsen.2 4. The standard for a Rule 59(e) motion for reargument is well-settled. The purpose of reargument is to permit reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions, of law, or judgment of law.3 Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision.4 A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court.5 1 170 A.2d 800 (N.J. 1961). 2 675 A.2d 13 (Del Super. 1995). 3 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969). 4 Simpson v. Coleman, 2012 WL 1415714, at *1 (Del. Super. Feb 23, 2012). 5 McKay v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2008 WL 4947652, at 1 (Del. Super. Nov. 18, 2008). 3 Cullen, et al. v. Dudley, et al. C.A. No. K10C-05-008 JTV May 29, 2013 5. Here, Dudley asks this Court to reconsider its decision based on the Mazzilli case. As mentioned, however, the Court already expressly considered, and declined to follow, Mazzilli. Although similar to the facts presented in this case, Mazzilli is a New Jersey Supreme Court case, which has no binding effect on this Court. Accordingly, Dudley has not demonstrated that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. The Court is still of the opinion that Dudley was not a resident of the grandparents household based on the unambiguous meaning of the term household, and the Court still declines to follow the Mazzilli case. 6. For the foregoing reasons, Dudley s motion for reargument is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. President Judge oc: cc: Prothonotary Order Distribution File 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.
