City of Wilmington v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Company
N16C-05-261 PRW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- GEICO (two related GEICO entities) pursued PIP subrogation claims against the City of Wilmington in multiple fora: Court of Common Pleas and Arbitration Forums, Inc. (AFI).
- Under 21 Del. C. § 2118(g)(3), disputes between an insurer and a self-insurer must be arbitrated before the Delaware Insurance Commissioner, not AFI.
- In Case 1, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed GEICO-Govt's suit for lack of jurisdiction; GEICO then filed at AFI, AFI dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, GEICO refiled at AFI, and AFI entered a default award against the City.
- In Case 2, GEICO-AIC filed in common pleas (dismissed); GEICO filed at AFI and obtained a default award; the City appealed to AFI and to Superior Court and sought conversion of the appeal to a writ of certiorari.
- AFI twice acknowledged it lacked jurisdiction but later (improperly, per the Commissioner) assumed jurisdiction and refused to reconsider jurisdictional error; the City moved in Superior Court to convert appeals to writs of certiorari.
- The Commissioner recommends denying GEICO’s motion to dismiss and granting the City’s motions to convert to writs of certiorari so the Superior Court can review AFI’s jurisdictional error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (GEICO) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AFI had subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes between GEICO and the City | The City is a self-insured governmental entity; statute requires arbitration before the Insurance Commissioner, so AFI lacked jurisdiction | GEICO treated the City as an "insurer" or as subject to AFI; AFI procedures authorize arbitration | Court: AFI lacked jurisdiction over insurer vs. self-insurer disputes under §2118(g)(3); AFI erred in assuming jurisdiction after previously dismissing for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the City is "self-insured" (affecting proper forum) | City is a self-insured governmental entity and not an insurer for purposes of forum selection under §2118(g)(3) | GEICO cites City of Wilmington v. Nationwide to argue City should be treated as an insurer | Court: City is properly characterized as a self-insured entity for forum purposes; Nationwide decision did not convert City into a general "insurer" for all purposes |
| Whether the Superior Court may provide relief by converting the appeal to a writ of certiorari | Because direct appeal is unavailable, a common-law writ of certiorari is appropriate to correct AFI's jurisdictional error and there is no other adequate remedy | GEICO contends alternative relief existed (Court of Chancery under 10 Del. C. §§5714–5715 or administrative code deeming City signatory) | Court: Writ of certiorari is available; Court of Chancery remedies under the Uniform Arbitration Act do not apply because there is no written arbitration agreement and other statutory/administrative avenues are inadequate |
| Whether service of process on GEICO and the City was sufficient for Superior Court proceedings | City complied with Superior Court rules for notice of appeal and service; GEICO received actual timely notice | GEICO contends service was improper (Commissioner should have been served) and appeals should be dismissed for defective service | Court: GEICO received timely actual notice; no prejudice shown; motion to dismiss for improper service denied |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 643 A.2d 328 (Del. Super. 1994) (interpreting §2118(g)(3) to require Insurance Commissioner arbitration for insurer v. self-insurer disputes)
- Sternberg v. O'Neil, 550 A.2d 1105 (Del. 1988) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties)
- Maddrey v. Justice of the Peace Court No. 13, 956 A.2d 1204 (Del. 2008) (standards for certiorari/writ review and availability when appeal is barred)
- Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431 (Del. 1977) (writ of certiorari corrects lower tribunals acting without or in excess of jurisdiction)
- Di's, Inc. v. McKinney, 673 A.2d 1199 (Del. 1996) (writ of certiorari is functionally equivalent to an appeal but confined to the record)
- Fouracre v. White, 102 A. 186 (Del. Super. 1917) (writs may issue against inferior judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals)