Buckley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
139 A.3d 845
| Del. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On March 27, 2012, 16-year-old Stephanie Buckley was struck by a car while crossing a two-lane road to board a school bus; the bus was stopped, its red lights and stop arm were deployed, and the driver instructed Buckley via the bus intercom to cross.
- The bus was insured by State Farm; its policy provided $100,000 in PIP coverage and defined "occupying" to include "entering."
- Buckley sought $75,423.60 in PIP benefits; State Farm denied payment arguing she was not an "occupant" and was not injured in an accident "involving" the bus.
- State Farm moved for summary judgment; facts were undisputed and the issue was legal interpretation of 21 Del. C. § 2118(a)(2)c and related case law.
- The court applied the two-step framework: Fisher (occupant analysis) and Kelty (whether accident involved a vehicle), as reaffirmed in Friel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buckley was an "occupant" of the bus under §2118(a)(2)c | Buckley was "entering" the bus when struck (driver directed her to cross; boarding process includes crossing) | Not an occupant because she had not reached the bus entrance on the opposite side; had not yet begun entering | Court held Buckley met Fisher: she was within a reasonable geographic perimeter and engaged in a task related to operation (boarding), so she was an "occupant" |
| Whether the injury was "in an accident involving such motor vehicle" (Kelty test) | Bus was an active accessory: lights, stop arm, and driver instruction caused her to cross; no superseding act | The other driver’s negligence (and alleged plaintiff comparative negligence) severs causal link, so accident did not involve the bus | Court held bus was an active accessory and no independent/superseding act broke the causal link; injury was in an accident involving the bus |
| Whether occupancy alone suffices to trigger PIP (statutory interpretation) | Plaintiff urged a plain either-or reading: occupancy alone should trigger coverage | Defendant urged adherence to Friel: both Fisher (occupant) and Kelty (involving vehicle) must be satisfied | Court followed Friel and applied both tests; occupancy alone insufficient but both tests were satisfied here |
| Whether regulatory boarding procedures affect the analysis | Plaintiff cited Delaware school-bus regulations that treat crossing on driver instruction as part of boarding | Not specifically disputed beyond arguing factual insufficiency to show "entering" | Court found the regulations supportive: crossing on driver instruction is part of boarding and informs the reasonable-perimeter/operation analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Fisher, 692 A.2d 892 (Del. 1997) (establishes disjunctive two-prong occupant test: reasonable geographic perimeter or task related to vehicle operation)
- Kelty v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 926 (Del. 2013) (requires vehicle be an "active accessory" and no superseding independent act to show accident involved the vehicle)
- Friel v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 108 A.3d 1225 (Del. 2015) (affirming Superior Court framework requiring both Fisher and Kelty analyses)
- International Underwriters, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Del., 449 A.2d 197 (Del. 1982) (discusses legislative purpose of Delaware's PIP mandate)