This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court, which granted summary judgment on a request for declaratory relief by the plaintiffs-appellees, Alice M. Williams and Ervin H. Williams (“the Williams”). The Superior Court held that the Williams were entitled to receive the full limits of their underinsured motorist coverage. The Williams' insurance carrier is the defendant-appellant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”).
The original arguments by both parties in this appeal assumed that the Williams were entitled to recover pursuant to their underin-sured motorist policy. Nationwide argued that the Williams should have been awarded $2,000. The Williams argued that the Superior Court properly construed the statute and that they should receive the entire $100,-000 limit of their underinsured motorist policy. Thus, the parties’ original arguments were how much of, rather than whether, an underinsurance payment would be made to the Williams by Nationwide.
This Court ordered supplemental briefing after the issuance of its opinion in
Nationwide Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Peebles,
Del.Supr.,
Background Facts
The plaintiff, Alice M. Williams, was driving an automobile that was involved in a collision with a second automobile being driven by Michael Bryson (“Bryson”). The accident occurred on July 29, 1995. There is no dispute, for purposes of this appeal, that Bryson was at fault in the accident.
The police report of the accident reflects that Bryson ran a stop sign and collided with the Williams’ vehicle. Alice M. Williams and the passengers in her vehicle, Sylvia Santiago, Willie Mae Johnson, and Anna N. Sho-well, were all injured in the accident. Bry-son and the passenger in his vehicle, Deanna Davis, were also injured.
At the time of the accident, Bryson was covered under a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). The total limits of liability coverage available to Bryson under the Allstate policy were $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The injured parties and their counsel agreed to a partition of the $300,000 per accident coverage in the Allstate policy, as follows: $98,000 to the Williams; $98,000 to Anna N. Showell; $52,-000 to Sylvia and Jose Santiago; $32,000 to Willie Mae and Alexander Johnson; and $20,000 to Deanna Davis.
At the time of the accident, the Williams were covered by a policy of automobile liability insurance with Nationwide that included uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,-000 per occurrence. Thus, the limits of the Williams’ uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage with Nationwide were identical to the liability limits carried by Bryson with Allstate.
Superior Court Action
On March 7, 1996, the Williams filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Nationwide, their insurance carrier. The Williams alleged that on July 29, 1995, Alice Williams was severely injured in an automobile accident caused by Bryson; that other individuals were injured in the same automobile accident; that all injured parties agreed to an out-of-court settlement with Bryson’s insurer for its liability policy limits; and that “Plaintiffs [Alice and Ervin Williams] received their share, $98,000, and released Mr. Bryson and his insurer Allstate.” It was further alleged that the Williams were entitled to receive compensation for their actual damages in an amount up to the $100,000 limit of their underinsured motorist coverage from their insurance carrier, Nationwide, and
Nationwide filed an answer to the complaint. It admitted that $2,000 had been tendered as the undisputed underinsured motorist coverage. It denied liability for further underinsurance motorist coverage.
The Superior Court granted the Williams’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. It relied upon a decision of this Court which had construed the statutory operation of
uninsured
motorist coverage.
Hurst v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
Del. Supr.,
The parties entered into a stipulation that the Williams’ combined damages amounted to $198,000. The stipulation further stated:
Therefore, unless the decision of [the Superior] Court, dated August 19, 1996 is reversed on appeal, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the policy limits of their insurance policy, subject to this suit, from the Defendant, up to $100,000.00. If the judgment is reversed on appeal, the Plaintiffs are entitled to $2,000.00.
Final judgment was entered by the Superior Court pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
Prior Precedents Hurst and Peebles
This Court has recently examined the statutory provisions relating to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in two separate opinions. The statutory operation of
uninsured
motorist coverage was decided in
Hurst v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Del.Supr.,
In Peebles, this Court noted that the statute defines an underinsured driver as a tort-feasor with liability policy limits that are less than the limits of the claimant’s uninsured motorist coverage. Id.
An underinsured motor vehicle is one for which there may be bodily injury liability coverage in effect, but the limits of bodily injury liability coverage under all bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident total less than the limits provided by the uninsured motorist coverage.
18
Del.C.
§ 3902(b)(2) (emphasis added). In
Peebles,
this Court held that the definition of underinsurance in Section 3902(b)(2) operates as a prerequisite to a right of recovery from the claimant’s underinsurance motorist policy.
Nationwide Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peebles,
Tortfeasor Not Underinsured
The focus of the unambiguous definition of underinsurance in Section 3902(b)(2) is on the symmetry between the
limits
of the insured claimant’s coverage and the
limits
of the tortfeasor’s coverage, not the amount of the tortfeasor’s coverage that remains
available
to pay the insured, after other “per accident” claims are paid pursuant to the tortfeasor’s liability policy. The present case is controlled by this Court’s ruling in
Gillas-pie.
Unlike
Hurst
and
Peebles,
the tortfea-sor Bryson’s
“limits
of bodily injury liability coverage ... applicable at the time of the accident” were identical to the
limits
of the Williams’ uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. 18
Del.C.
§ 3902(b)(2). Accordingly, the tortfeasor, Bryson, was not an “underinsured” motorist within the meaning of Section 3902(b)(2).
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gillaspie,
Del.Super.,
Conclusion
The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed. Subject to the stipulation as to damages by the parties, the Williams are not entitled to recover under their underinsurance motorist policy with Nationwide. This matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Notes
. Section 3902(b)(3) provides that the underin-sured motorist coverage insurer does not have to make any payment until the limits of all bodily injury insurance policies or bonds available to the insured have been exhausted. 18 Del.C. § 3902(b)(3). Nevertheless, when the underin-sured policy is activated, it must respond in an amount up to its policy limits "for bodily injury damage that the insured or his legal representa-tíve are legally entitled to recover from the driver of an underinsured motor vehicle.” Id. § 3902(b)(1) (emphasis added).
. In
Gillaspie,
the Superior Court held that because the tortfeasor’s liability coverage was not less than Gillaspie's uninsured motorist coverage, Gillaspie did not meet the unambiguous statutory definition of being injured by an "un-