Kanu v. Allstate
N15C-11-002 CLS
| Del. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- On Feb. 13, 2015 plaintiff lost control on northbound I-95 after attempting to avoid an unidentified object in the roadway and struck two other vehicles; he sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from Allstate.
- Allstate moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff offered no facts showing the object came from another motor vehicle, that plaintiff’s swerving was an intervening act breaking causation under Klug, and that plaintiff failed to plead negligence by a phantom driver.
- Plaintiff opposed, arguing material facts exist as to whether the object originated from another vehicle and thus UM coverage could apply.
- Allstate also moved to strike portions of plaintiff’s response (paragraphs 6–9), contending those paragraphs rely on inadmissible police-report material and hearsay within hearsay.
- Court viewed the record in plaintiff’s favor, found a genuine factual issue whether the object came from a motor vehicle, applied Delaware UM statute (18 Del. C. § 3902) and the Klug test, and denied both Allstate’s summary judgment and motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s injuries arose out of use of a motor vehicle for UM coverage | The unidentified object may have come from another vehicle; viewing evidence for plaintiff creates a triable issue | Plaintiff offered no facts linking the object to a vehicle; plaintiff’s swerving was an independent act breaking causation | Denied MSJ — material fact exists whether object came from another vehicle; Klug prongs are satisfied on record view for plaintiff |
| Whether the insured vehicle was an “active accessory” under Klug | Plaintiff’s vehicle actively participated because he was driving and swerved to avoid the object | Allstate: vehicle was merely the situs or plaintiff’s own act severed causal link | Court: vehicle was an active accessory; swerving was not an act of independent significance breaking causal link |
| Whether the accident met statutory UM hit‑and‑run/noncontact requirements | Plaintiff need not show physical contact; noncontact vehicle origin of debris suffices if jury could infer source | Allstate: absence of evidence that object came from a vehicle defeats UM claim | Court: statute has no physical contact requirement; reasonable juror could infer object origin from another vehicle |
| Whether portions of plaintiff’s response should be struck as inadmissible | Plaintiff: admissibility not required at summary judgment stage to show triable issue | Allstate: paragraphs rely on inadmissible police report and double hearsay | Court: motions to strike disfavored; admissibility unnecessary because triable issue exists; denied motion to strike |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelty v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 926 (Del. 2013) (establishes the Klug three‑part analysis for whether injury arose out of use of a motor vehicle)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Buckingham, 919 A.2d 1111 (Del. 2007) (discusses ‘‘active accessory’’ and act‑of‑independent‑significance doctrines)
- Abramowicz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 386 A.2d 670 (Del. 1978) (interprets hit‑and‑run/noncontact provisions of UM statute)
- National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Fisher, 692 A.2d 892 (Del. 1997) (explains legislative purpose of UM coverage to protect victims of unknown or impecunious tortfeasors)