Sessoms v. Richmond
N17C-03-180 WCC
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- On April 27, 2015, Sessoms was injured as a passenger in Wilmington, DE when Richmond (a New Jersey resident) allegedly ran a red light; Richmond was insured by Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE), a New Jersey insurer.
- CURE investigated but, after Richmond failed to comply with an Examination Under Oath ordered by a New Jersey court, CURE denied coverage on November 13, 2015 for failure to cooperate.
- Sessoms sued in Delaware Superior Court (filed March 15, 2017; amended May 10, 2017), asserting negligence against Richmond and seeking declaratory judgment that CURE must indemnify/defend under the policy, plus damages and fees.
- CURE moved to dismiss Count II (declaratory judgment) for lack of personal jurisdiction under Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(2); Sessoms opposed and sought summary judgment on Count I.
- The court treated the negligence/tort claims arising from the Delaware accident separately from the contract/coverage dispute between two New Jersey parties and evaluated Delaware's long-arm statute and due-process limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delaware has personal jurisdiction over CURE for a declaratory-judgment action interpreting the insurance contract | The accident in Delaware and State Farm v. Dann support exercising jurisdiction over insurer | CURE lacks sufficient Delaware contacts; insurer is New Jersey-domiciled, not licensed or doing business in DE | Court: No jurisdiction for the contract/coverage (Count II). Dismissed |
| Whether a single tortious act in DE (the accident) permits jurisdiction over insurer for contract-based coverage dispute | The tort (collision in DE) is a sufficient single contact to subject insurer to Delaware jurisdiction | The contract dispute is distinct and too attenuated from the tort to satisfy due process | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists for claims arising directly from the accident, but not for separate contract interpretation between NJ parties |
| Whether plaintiff's request for summary judgment should be granted after motion to dismiss | Summary judgment sought once court refused dismissal (plaintiff assumed success) | CURE opposed dismissal; summary judgment not briefed or supported | Court: Summary judgment DENIED as moot after dismissal of declaratory claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dann, 794 A.2d 42 (Del. Super. Ct. 2002) (holding a single tort committed in Delaware can confer specific jurisdiction over tortfeasor and insurer for claims arising from that tort)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established the "minimum contacts" due-process test for personal jurisdiction)
- Boone v. Oy Partek Ab, 724 A.2d 1150 (Del. Super. Ct. 1997) (discusses plaintiff's burden to plead facts supporting jurisdiction)
- Mobile Diagnostic Grp. Holdings, LLC v. Suer, 972 A.2d 799 (Del. Ch. 2009) (plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction is conferred by statute)