Jarrett v. Titan Indemnity Company, K16C-06-025 WLW

On Feb. 3, 2016, Jarrett parked his insured vehicle beside another car in an apartment lot to perform maintenance and stood next to his vehicle with keys in hand when a falling tree struck him and his car.
Jarrett submitted a PIP (no-fault) claim to Titan; Titan denied benefits, asserting the injury did not "arise out of" ownership, maintenance, or use of the vehicle and that the vehicle was merely the situs of the injury.
Jarrett sued for unpaid medical expenses and statutory damages under 21 Del. C. § 2118B(c); Titan moved for summary judgment.
Parties disputed (1) whether Jarrett was an "occupant" under Fisher; (2) whether the vehicle was an "active accessory" under Kelty (or merely the situs); and (3) whether the falling tree was an act of independent significance severing causation.
The court found Jarrett was an occupant under the Fisher geographic-prong but held the vehicle was not an active accessory under Kelty (it was merely the situs), and therefore Jarrett was not injured in an "accident involving" his insured vehicle and was not entitled to PIP benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Jarrett an "occupant" of the vehicle under Fisher?	Jarrett: yes — he was within a reasonable geographic perimeter (standing next to the car with keys).	Titan: close proximity alone is insufficient to extend PIP.	Held: Yes — Fisher geographic-prong satisfied; Jarrett was an occupant.
Was the vehicle an "active accessory" (Kelty) or merely the situs of injury?	Jarrett: vehicle actively contributed to injury; not mere situs.	Titan: vehicle had negligible impact; it was merely the situs.	Held: Vehicle was mere situs, not an active accessory; no causal link.
Did an "act of independent significance" (tree falling) break causal link?	Jarrett: tree falling does not break causal link.	Titan: falling tree was independent and broke causal chain.	Held: Court did not reach/need to decide because active-accessory prong failed.
Is Jarrett entitled to PIP under § 2118(a)(2)c despite not using vehicle for transport?	Jarrett: statute does not require vehicle to be used for transportation.	Titan: Plaintiff not using vehicle for transport undermines coverage.	Held: Statutory framework applied; occupancy satisfied but no coverage because injury not "involving" vehicle.

Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Fisher, 692 A.2d 892 (Del. 1997) (defines "occupant" test: within reasonable geographic perimeter or engaged in a task related to operation).
Kelty v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 926 (Del. 2013) (adopts two‑part test for whether injury is "involving" a vehicle: vehicle as active accessory and independent significance inquiry).
Cont'l W. Ins. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 1987) (original formulation distinguishing active accessory from mere situs; Kelty relied on Klug framework).
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard — burden on nonmoving party to show essential elements).