State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Buckley
140 A.3d 431
| Del. | 2016Background
- Statute: 21 Del. C. § 2118 requires motor vehicle insurance to provide personal injury protection (PIP) to persons "occupying such motor vehicle" and others injured in an accident involving that motor vehicle.
- Facts: Stephanie Buckley was struck by a car as she crossed the street to board a school bus after receiving the bus driver's signal.
- Policy: State Farm insured the school bus and denied PIP benefits to Buckley.
- Procedural history: Superior Court awarded PIP to Buckley; State Farm appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court (Court en Banc).
- Key factual/legal premise: Delaware regulations and the Commercial Driver License Manual require students to board only on the bus driver's signal, making the bus driver’s control over boarding an integral part of bus operation.
- Holding below affirmed: The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, concluding the school bus was sufficiently "involved" in the accident for § 2118 PIP coverage because the driver controlled Buckley’s boarding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the school bus was "involved" in Buckley’s injury under § 2118 | Buckley: boarding was directed by the bus driver; the bus (and its operation) was integral to the incident, so PIP applies | State Farm: mere presence of bus or regulatory tangentiality doesn't make it "involved"; claim stretches § 2118 beyond intended scope | Court: Bus was involved because driver-controlled boarding made the bus an integral causal participant; PIP applies |
| Whether the involvement test should exclude this claim under prior limiting doctrines (e.g., claims lacking causal vehicle role) | Buckley: prior doctrines should not bar recovery where vehicle clearly played a substantial role | State Farm: prior cases (like Sanchez, Kelty issues) show limits on stretching § 2118 | Court: Distinguished strained claims; this case fits the statute’s common-sense motor-vehicle-accident concept and is not a strained extension |
| Whether fault of the striking vehicle precludes PIP from the bus insurer | Buckley: fault of other driver does not preclude PIP from bus policy because PIP is no-fault coverage tied to an involved vehicle | State Farm: (argued generally against coverage) | Court: Fault of other driver irrelevant to entitlement to PIP from an involved vehicle’s policy |
| Whether the complaint failed even under Kelty-style analysis | Buckley: complaint pleaded facts showing bus-driver control over boarding, satisfying Kelty’s considerations | State Farm: argued complaint insufficient under Kelty | Court: Agreed with Superior Court that given the regulatory driver control, Buckley’s complaint sufficed; declined to decide broader doctrinal revisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelty v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 926 (Del. 2013) (discusses limits on what counts as an "accident" involving a motor vehicle)
- Selective Ins. Co. v. Lyons, 681 A.2d 1021 (Del. 1996) (addresses scope of PIP coverage and related interpretive tests)
- Gray v. Allstate Ins. Co., 668 A.2d 778 (Del. Super. 1995) (defines accident as originating from or connected with use of a motor vehicle)
- Cawthon v. Waco Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 358 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. App. 1987) (holds a child crossing under a stopped school bus’s protection is covered by the bus’s insurance)
- Westerfield v. LaFleur, 493 So. 2d 600 (La. 1986) (recognizes special, protective relationship among child, bus, and driver during boarding/alighting)