Shuba v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
77 A.3d 945
| Del. | 2013Background
- Decedent Linda Ann Banning, not a named insured or household resident, died in a Delaware auto wreck in 2002; her children Kylie and Michael Shuba sought UIM coverage under Gloria Shuba’s USAA policy.
- Gatto’s insurer paid its UM/UIM limits; Decedent’s insurer also paid its UIM limits and preserved further UIM rights.
- In 2009, the Shubas sued USAA to recover under Gloria’s policy; USAA moved for summary judgment and the court granted it, while denying the Shubas’ cross-motion.
- The Superior Court held Decedent was not covered by Gloria’s USAA policy, so no UIM recovery for the wrongful death claim.
- Delaware law governs the interpretation of 18 Del. C. § 3902(b) and the parties appeal the ruling on whether Temple and Adams-Baez should be overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Temple/Adams-Baez should be overruled | Shuba argues decedent-not-insured approach is improper | Temple/Adams-Baez correctly limit UIM to insured injuries | Temple/Adams-Baez not overruled |
| Whether decedent’s lack of coverage bars UIM recovery for wrongful death | Shuba claims § 3902(b) protects innocent third parties | UIM coverage requires injury to an insured or death of insured | No recovery because decedent was not insured under Gloria’s policy |
| Whether Delaware policy language and § 3902(b) require insured status for UIM recovery | Policy should cover third-party wrongful death to align with § 3902(b) purpose | Coverage limited to insureds or those injured by insured/underinsured motorist | Statutory language requires insured status for wrongful death UIM recovery |
| Whether state policy and public policy support broader UIM recovery | Public policy protects innocent persons from uninsured motorists | Broad reading creates administrative/economic risk and is contrary to precedent | Court adheres to majority rule; no broader recovery for non-insured decedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 782 A.2d 267 (Del. 2001) (UIM requires the decedent be insured for wrongful death recovery)
- Adams-Baez v. General Accident Co., (Del. 2005) (Del. 2005) (Temple reasoning applied to wrongful death; not overruled)
- Lafleur v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 385 So.2d 1241 (La. Ct. App. 1980) (illustrates policy interpretation similar to Temple/Adams-Baez)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hammonds, 72 Wash. App. 664, 865 P.2d 560 (Wash. App. 1994) (UIM coverage limits for insured injuries; not extended to non-insured death)
- Gordon v. Atlanta Casualty Co., 279 Ga. 148, 611 S.E.2d 24 (Ga. 2005) (minority view later changed; supports insured-for-wrongful-death recovery now)
- Dees v. Logan, 282 Ga. 815, 653 S.E.2d 735 (Ga. 2007) (statutory interpretation of UIM coverage in Georgia)
- Eaquinta v. Allstate Ins. Co., 125 P.3d 901 (Utah 2005) (majority view limiting UIM to insured injuries)
- Gloe v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 694 N.W.2d 238 (Iowa 2005) (no UIM for third-party loss under non-insured status)
- Jones v. AIU Ins. Co., 51 P.3d 1044 (Colo. App. 2001) (supports insured-focused UIM recovery)