Progressive Northern Insurance v. Mohr
47 A.3d 492
| Del. | 2012Background
- Mohr, a Delaware resident, was struck in Delaware as a pedestrian by a car insured in Delaware and recovered the statutory minimum $15,000 from that striking-car insurer.
- Mohr sought an additional $85,000 from Progressive Northern Insurance Co., which insured Mohr’s mother’s car under a policy that purportedly provided pedestrian PIP to household members, but did so only when the striking vehicle was not Delaware-insured.
- Progressive denied coverage, arguing its policy did not cover pedestrians injured by a Delaware-insured vehicle in Delaware.
- The Superior Court held that Progressive’s denial conflicted with § 2118(a)(2)(e) and awarded Mohr the $85,000 difference, totaling $100,000 PIP coverage.
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that § 2118(a)(2)(e) is ambiguous and must be construed to advance the statute’s goals of full compensation and encouraging higher coverage.
- The decision rests on interpreting the statutory scheme to allow stacking or attracting higher pedestrian PIP coverage when a Delaware-insured vehicle injures an insured pedestrian.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 2118(a)(2)(e) plain or ambiguous regarding pedestrian PIP coverage when the struck pedestrian is hit by a Delaware-insured vehicle? | Mohr: § 2118(a)(2)(e) is ambiguous and supports coverage for pedestrians under the pedestrian PIP provision. | Progressive: § 2118(a)(2)(e) limits coverage to the striking car’s policy and/or restricts geographic application. | Ambiguous |
| If ambiguous, which interpretation best furthers the statute’s purpose of full compensation and encouraging higher coverage? | Mohr’s interpretation better advances full compensation and encourages purchasing more than the minimum. | Progressive’s view preserves the legislature’s distinction between Delaware and non-Delaware insured vehicles. | Mohr’s interpretation favored; the Superior Court’s reading is upheld |
| Does the statute require stacking or extend pedestrian PIP to a pedestrian injured by a Delaware-insured vehicle? | Mohr should be entitled to the difference between the minimum PIP from the striking-car policy and the higher PIP under the Progressive policy. | No stacking or extension beyond the statutory mandate; the statute delineates scope by subparagraphs. | Yes, the interpretation that allows coverage beyond the minimum is supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide General Ins. Co. v. Seeman, 702 A.2d 915 (Del. 1997) (public policy favors full compensation and purchase of more than minimum coverage)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wagamon, 541 A.2d 557 (Del. 1988) (no policy exclusions violating statutory minimum absent legislative authority)
- Bass v. Horizon Assurance Co., 562 A.2d 1194 (Del. 1989) (exclusions conflicting with no-fault statute violate public policy)
- Nationwide General Ins. Co. v. Seeman, 702 A.2d 915 (Del. 1997) (public policy promotes more than statutorily mandated minimum)