Kelty v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
2013 Del. LEXIS 387
| Del. | 2013Background
- On Aug. 3, 2008, Matthew Kelty was cutting tree branches while tied by a rope to John Lovegrove’s pickup hitch; Lovegrove accelerated the truck to tension the rope so branches would fall away from a power line.
- A branch fell unexpectedly after the rope allegedly snapped when Lovegrove accelerated; the branch struck a power line and knocked Kelty out of the tree, causing serious injuries.
- Kelty obtained a settlement from Lovegrove’s liability insurer (State Farm) and separately sought Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits under 21 Del. C. § 2118(a)(2); State Farm denied the PIP claim.
- At summary judgment the Superior Court applied Delaware’s three‑part Klug test (active accessory; independent act breaking causation; vehicle used for transportation) and found the truck was not used for transportation, granting State Farm judgment.
- The Delaware Supreme Court reviews statutory interpretation de novo and reconsidered whether the Klug transportation prong is required under § 2118(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kelty was entitled to PIP benefits as a person “injured in an accident involving [the insured] motor vehicle” under 21 Del. C. § 2118(a)(2) | Kelty: the truck was an active accessory (its acceleration exerted force on the rope/branch) and no independent act broke the causal link, so the accident involved the vehicle and PIP applies | State Farm: prior Klug‑based precedent requires the vehicle be used for transportation purposes; the truck was a tool, not used for transportation, so PIP does not apply | The Court rejected the Klug transportation prong for § 2118(a)(2); it held Kelty satisfied the active‑accessory and no independent‑act prongs, reversed summary judgment, and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 1987) (three‑part test for whether injury "arose out of use of a motor vehicle")
- Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Royal, 700 A.2d 130 (Del. 1997) (adopting Klug test for UIM coverage analysis)
- Buckingham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 919 A.2d 1111 (Del. 2007) (applying Klug second‑prong independent‑act analysis)
- Sanchez v. Am. Indep. Ins. Co., 886 A.2d 1278 (Del. 2005) (extending Klug framework to PIP claims but misapplied statutory text)
- Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 A.3d 1137 (Del. 2011) (applied Klug test to PIP dispute)
- Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Mohr, 47 A.3d 492 (Del. 2012) (discussion of § 2118(a) PIP statutory structure)