Greene v. Allstate Insurance Co., N15C-03-052 VLM

Frank Greene (pro se) sued Allstate after a 2013 total-loss of his 2007 Toyota Tundra, claiming Allstate underpaid the vehicle’s actual cash value by roughly $9,000.
Greene received two checks in 2013 (one for the total loss, one for the deductible) and sent the vehicle title to Allstate; he filed suit about 20 months later on March 6, 2015.
Allstate moved for summary judgment arguing Greene had settled; the court initially denied summary judgment because genuine factual issues existed (no release signed; one check labeled for uninsured motorist coverage).
The court repeatedly instructed Greene on evidence rules, hearsay, and trial procedure, granted multiple continuances to allow Greene to secure a witness, and permitted one untimely witness (Anthony Harris) to avoid dismissal.
At the September 25, 2017 pretrial/status conference Harris confirmed he could not testify about the vehicle’s actual cash value; Greene had no other admissible evidence (he proposed reading Kelley's Blue Book aloud).
The court concluded there was no admissible evidence to meet Greene’s burden and, applying Drejka factors, dismissed the complaint as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment/dismissal is appropriate when plaintiff lacks admissible evidence to prove actual cash value	Greene argued he could prove value (e.g., Kelley's Blue Book) and had not settled in full	Allstate argued Greene settled/has no admissible evidence to support actual cash value	Dismissal granted: no admissible evidence; defendant entitled to judgment as matter of law
Whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction under court scheduling rules (Drejka factors)	Greene asked for accommodations due to pro se status and witness issues	Allstate argued repeated delays and failure to comply warranted dismissal	Dismissal justified under Drejka factors given responsibility, prejudice, lack of alternative sanctions, and lack of evidence
Whether untimely disclosure of a witness warranted exclusion	Greene sought to call Harris despite late disclosure	Allstate sought to strike Harris for scheduling-order violations	Court previously denied strike to avoid outright dismissal, but Harris ultimately provided no admissible testimony; exclusion issue became moot
Whether pro se status excuses failure to comply with rules and present admissible evidence	Greene cited pro se status and inexperience	Allstate maintained rules apply equally; lack of evidence fatal	Court afforded accommodations but held pro se status does not excuse failure to meet evidentiary and procedural obligations

Drejka v. Hitchens Tire Serv. Inc., 15 A.3d 1221 (Del. 2010) (discusses court’s discretion to enforce scheduling orders and sanctions including dismissal)
Christian v. Counseling Resource Assocs., Inc., 60 A.3d 1083 (Del. 2013) (framework on sanctions and excluding testimony vs. dismissal)
Draper v. Medical Ctr. of Delaware, 767 A.2d 796 (Del. 2001) (pro se litigants are held to the same rules as represented parties)
Adams v. Aidoo, 58 A.3d 410 (Del. 2013) (court may dismiss where repeated instructions to a party were ignored)
Smith v. Delaware State Univ., 47 A.3d 472 (Del. 2012) (standard for surviving summary judgment requires sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder)
Minna v. Energy Coal S.p.A., 984 A.3d 1210 (Del. 2009) (standard on burden-shifting in summary judgment context)