Finney v. Atlantic States Insurance Company
K17C-02-018 WLW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- On Sept. 27, 2016, a car driven by 16-year-old Mason Faust struck a utility pole and split it; the top half remained suspended by a guy wire.
- Aminah Finney stopped to render aid and stood near the damaged pole when ASIC-insured driver Gary Pierce arrived and struck the guy wire with his vehicle.
- Pierce’s contact with the guy wire caused the top of the pole to detach and strike Finney, injuring her.
- Finney submitted a claim for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits to Atlantic States Insurance Company (ASIC); ASIC denied coverage, prompting Finney to sue for a declaratory judgment under Delaware PIP law.
- Parties agreed Finney was a pedestrian (not an occupant); the coverage dispute turned on whether the injury was "in an accident involving" an insured motor vehicle under Kelty/Klug standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury was "in an accident involving" the insured vehicle (Kelty active-accessory prong) | Finney: Pierce’s vehicle was an active accessory because its force on the guy wire caused the pole to fall onto her | ASIC: The vehicle’s involvement was too attenuated; foreseeability and causation weigh against coverage | Held: Vehicle was an active accessory; first Kelty prong satisfied. |
| Whether an act of independent significance (Faust’s initial crash) broke causal link | Finney: Faust’s crash did not occur between Pierce striking the wire and the pole hitting her and therefore did not break the causal chain | ASIC: Faust’s earlier collision was an independent intervening act absolving ASIC | Held: Faust’s crash did not break the causal link; second Kelty prong satisfied. |
| Occupancy under Fisher (whether Finney was an occupant entitled to PIP) | Finney: Not disputed that she was a pedestrian but contended she was entitled to coverage as a non-occupant injured in an accident involving the vehicle | ASIC: Agreed she was not an occupant | Held: Occupancy not contested; analysis proceeded under non-occupant framework. |
| Whether foreseeability or public-policy limits (Buckley) bar coverage | Finney: Argued Delaware statute and Kelty do not require a foreseeability element; reliance on Minnesota dicta is misplaced | ASIC: Urged foreseeability and cautioned against strained readings of PIP statute | Held: Court declined to decide foreseeability or public-policy arguments, finding Kelty controlling and coverage appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelty v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 926 (Del. 2013) (adopts two-prong test: vehicle as an "active accessory" and absence of intervening independent act)
- Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Fisher, 692 A.2d 892 (Del. 1997) (defines occupancy test for PIP claims)
- Klug v. Continental W. Ins. Co., 415 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 1987) (original multi-prong test addressing vehicle involvement in injury)
- Associated Indep. Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Serv. Ins. Co., 229 N.W.2d 516 (Minn. 1975) (discusses foreseeability in no-fault coverage — relied on by ASIC)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Buckley, 140 A.3d 431 (Del. 2016) (cautions against strained constructions of PIP statute; cited by ASIC)