Kanu v. Allstate Insurance Company ( 2017 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ARUNA SAMPHA KANU, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No. N15C-11-002 CLS
ALLSTATE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
)
ORDER
Upon Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s
Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.
GRANTED.
Date Submitted: October 26, 2017
Date Decided: October 30, 2017
This is a personal injury action arising from Plaintiff Aruna Sampha Kanu’s
(“Plaintiff”) alleged injuries. On February 13, 2015, three vehicles were involved in
a motor vehicle accident where Plaintiff lost control of his vehicle and struck two
other vehicles on northbound Interstate 95 (“I-95”). Plaintiff sought uninsured
motorist benefits from his insurer, Defendant Allstate Insurance Company
(“Defendant”). Defendant moved for summary judgment on November 25, 2016.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on January 3, 2017. Subsequently,
Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Response on January 6,
2017. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on January 9, 2017. The Court
ultimately denied Defendant’s motions reasoning that there were still genuine issues
of material fact and summary judgment was inappropriate at that time.
In the pre-trial conference on October 25, 2016, the Court asked the parties to
file supplemental letters regarding the facts presented at trial. Defendant filed its
letter on October 25, 2017. Defendant contends that summary judgment is now
appropriate as there is no evidence to identify the alleged debris in the roadway.
Defendant also states that Plaintiff is unable to show that the alleged debris
originated from a motor vehicle, but even if it did, there is no evidence that a driver
was negligent in causing the accident. Additionally, Defendant points out that
Plaintiff admitted he was unaware of any alleged debris for nearly a month after the
accident. Defendant contends that this fact makes it “impossible that he was actually
reacting to debris he did not see.” Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s letter on
October 26, 2017 opposing Defendant’s renewal of its motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff argues that contrary to Defendant’s assertion that there is no
evidence demonstrating that debris was in the roadway, Plaintiff states that the 911
call provides a sufficient basis for a jury to infer that the debris came from a vehicle.
Plaintiff contends that the 911 call demonstrates a “passerby’s present sense
impression that something on the road caused [Plaintiff] to spin out of control.”
Plaintiff avers that based on the evidence it is “more likely than not that this object
2
was left on the road by another vehicle, and, as such, he should have received
coverage under his uninsured motorist policy.”
Based on the evidence before the Court, the pre-trial stipulation and the
discussion at the pre-trial conference, Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted. Defendant’s initial motion for summary judgment was denied
because the Court determined that at that time issues of fact still existed regarding
the alleged debris in the roadway. As five months have passed since the denial of
Defendant’s original motion, Plaintiff has not brought forth any evidence
demonstrating that the debris in the roadway came from a motor vehicle due to
negligence of another driver. Under Delaware law, “[v]iewing the facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, if an
essential element of the non-movant’s claim is unsupported by sufficient evidence
for a reasonable juror to find in the party’s favor, then summary judgment is
appropriate.”1 Even assuming that there was debris in the roadway, the facts before
the Court only allow for mere speculation that the debris came from a vehicle. As
the parties agreed at the pre-trial conference, uninsured motorist coverage only
extends to situations where debris came from another motor vehicle due to the
negligence of a driver. Here, there is nothing in the record indicating it did, and
1
Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2012 WL 3264925, at *2 (Del. Aug. 13, 2012)
(citing Nack v. Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc., 803 A.2d 428 (Del. 2002); Burkhart v.
Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 58-59 (Del. 1991)).
3
Plaintiff is unable to testify or present evidence regarding the identity of the object.
A jury would have to equally speculate whether the debris came from a vehicle or
from a source wholly unrelated to a motor vehicle. This type of speculation is what
warrants summary judgment. As a rational jury could not infer that the debris
originated from a motor vehicle, Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law. For the
foregoing reasons, Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Calvin L. Scott
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
4