Heasley v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company
N20C-09-246 VLM
| Del. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2022Background
- On August 15, 2018 Steven Heasley was in a head-on collision with a hit-and-run driver; that other vehicle was insured by Access, which had become insolvent before the accident. Heasley was driving a 1998 Lincoln insured by Allstate.
- Heasley’s Allstate policy began September 2017 and covered multiple vehicles; the Lincoln was added in May 2018.
- Heasley signed multiple UM/UIM waiver forms for vehicles on the policy, including an initial written rejection dated September 16, 2017; no signed waiver exists specifically for the Lincoln.
- After the accident Allstate mailed a UM/UIM form for the Lincoln (postmarked August 30, 2018) that was backdated to May 22, 2018; Heasley never signed it.
- Heasley sued Allstate on September 24, 2020 seeking reformation to provide UM/UIM coverage, moved for summary judgment, and Allstate filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the reformation claim.
- The Superior Court denied Heasley’s summary judgment motion and granted Allstate’s cross-motion, holding Heasley had validly waived UM/UIM under 18 Del. C. § 3902(a) and that § 3902(b)’s “meaningful offer” framework did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3902(b)’s “meaningful offer” requirement applies when adding the Lincoln | Addition was a material change triggering a meaningful-offer duty under § 3902(b) (relying on Mason) | § 3902(b) is inapplicable because Heasley previously waived UM/UIM; analysis should be under § 3902(a) | § 3902(b) does not apply; court analyzed under § 3902(a) |
| Whether Heasley validly waived UM/UIM under § 3902(a) | Waiver forms and insurer practices (e.g., pre-checked/backdated form) undermine validity of waiver | Heasley signed an initial written rejection and multiple waiver forms; waiver under § 3902(a) is valid | Waiver is valid: Heasley signed a written rejection and continued to reject coverage |
| Whether reformation is available because Allstate failed to offer UM/UIM for the Lincoln | Failure to make a meaningful offer entitles Heasley to reformation as a matter of law | Reformation unavailable: § 3902(a) requires a written request to obtain UM after waiver; none exists here | Reformation not available as a matter of law; judgment for Allstate |
| Whether there is a genuine factual dispute about whether Heasley would have purchased UM/UIM | If insurer failed to offer, Heasley need not prove acceptance | Heasley testified he did not know if he would have accepted UM/UIM, so no proof of assent | Court relied on Heasley’s deposition equivocation and found no triable issue supporting reformation |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. USAA, 697 A.2d 388 (Del. 1997) (articulates insurer’s burden to make a “meaningful offer” of additional UM coverage under § 3902(b)).
- Banaszak v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 3 A.3d 1089 (Del. 2010) (addresses adequacy of insurer disclosure and the informed-choice requirement under § 3902(b)).
- Humm v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 656 A.2d 712 (Del. 1995) (distinguishes § 3902(a) obligations regarding offers of UM coverage at policy issuance).
- Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962) (sets forth Delaware summary judgment standards).