56 A.3d 1062
Del.2012Background
- Plaintiff Bermel injured in a head-on crash while riding a personally-owned motorcycle insured under a Liberty policy for a Siemens fleet car.
- Siemens employed Bermel; the Liberty Business Auto Policy named Siemens as the insured, not Bermel.
- Bermel paid a nominal biweekly fee via payroll deduction for personal use of the Chrysler 300; this deduction was not premium for Liberty.
- Liberty denied UIM coverage arguing Bermel was not a named insured and that the policy language did not cover his personal use of a non-work vehicle.
- The Superior Court granted Liberty summary judgment, holding Bermel not a named insured and the policy unambiguous; this Court affirms.
- Arnica, Foremost, and Jurga sought UIM coverage from their respective insurers; Bermel’s claim focused on his access to Liberty’s policy for the Chrysler 300.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bermel was a named insured under the Liberty Policy | Bermel argues personal coverage extends to him. | Liberty argues Bermel is not named insured; coverage is limited to the named insured. | Bermel not a named insured; Liberty not obligated to provide UIM. |
| Whether the nominal pay deduction made Bermel a de facto insured | The deduction indicates Bermel purchased coverage. | Deduction did not fund Liberty premiums; no insured status created. | No, deduction did not convert Bermel into a named insured. |
| Whether the Liberty Policy is ambiguous and subject to reasonable expectations | Policy is ambiguous and should be construed in Bermel’s favor. | Policy is unambiguous and not subject to reasonable expectations. | Policy is unambiguous; Bermel cannot recover. |
| Whether OMV exclusions are void under the Underinsured Motorist Statute | OMV exclusions void as applied to named insureds, but Bermel was not a named insured; policy language governs. | ||
| Whether Bermel may recover UM/UIM benefits because he was injured in a non-work vehicle while employed by Siemens | UM/UIM coverage should extend to Bermel personally. | UM/UIM is personal to the insured and Bermel has no contractual rights as non-named insured. | Not entitled; Bermel cannot access UIM coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frank v. Horizon Assurance Co., 553 A.2d 1199 (Del. 1989) (OMV exclusions void; UM/UIM personal to insured)
- Hurst v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 652 A.2d 10 (Del. 1995) (UM/UIM is personal to the insured; coverage not contingent on vehicle involved)
- Castillo v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 8 A.3d 1177 (Del. 2010) (UM/UIM personal to insured; not dependent on vehicle)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nalbone, 569 A.2d 71 (Del. 1989) (premiums/contributions affect set-off; not applicable here)
- Adams v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 575 A.2d 1103 (Del. 1990) (employee paid for coverage; policy interaction; not applicable here)
- Frost v. Dep’t of Labor and Indus. of the State of Washington, 90 Wash.App. 627, 954 P.2d 1340 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (question of policy ownership; pay deductions vs premiums; control similar to rental)