Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Co.

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
SAM GLASSCOCK III
VICE CHANCELLOR
STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
May 5, 2022
Richard E. Berl, Jr., Esquire Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire
Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, LLC Reger Rizzo and Darnall LLP
34382 Carpenter’s Way, Suite 3 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 305
Lewes, DE 19958 Wilmington, DE 19803
RE: Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Property
Insurance Co., C.A. No. 2021-0012
Dear Counsel:
This matter involves a Defendant insurer (the “Insurer”) which issued a policy
of insurance for a dwelling on real property in Kent County, owned by the Plaintiff
LLC (the “LLC”). Unfortunately, and presumably mistakenly, the Insurer issued the
insurance in the name of the sole member of the LLC, and her husband, who do not
own the property. The member paid premiums on the policy monthly. The structure
burned; the LLC sought its benefits, and the Insurer denied coverage. This action,
in part, seeks an equitable reformation of the policy, which, again, purports to
provide coverage to non-owners, rather than the owner, the LLC. According to the
complaint, the Insurer knew or had reason to know the identity of the true owner of
the property. The Complaint seek relief on a variety of grounds, but a reformation
of the contract is, presumably, a predicate for each. The Insurer moved for dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), on the ground that the Complaint did not state a cognizable
claim for reformation. The Master recommended denial of the motion in a final
report dated August 31, 2021; the Insurer has taken exceptions, which I address in
this Letter Opinion.
I have reviewed the Master’s well-reasoned final report, together with the
briefing of the parties. The issues are legal ones, not factual, and I may do a review
on the record—which at this pleading stage is not in dispute—to fulfill my duty to
consider these issues on exception, under DiGiaccobe v. Sestak. 1
Upon review, the Master’s conclusion that the Motion to Dismiss should be
denied is manifestly correct as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Insurer’s
Exceptions are DENIED. It is so ordered. Additionally, in the interest of litigants’
and judicial economy, any future exceptions to interlocutory Master’s Reports or
orders in this matter, if timely filed by a party, are stayed pending a final
recommendation by the Master.
To the extent to forgoing requires an order to take effect, IT IS SO
ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Sam Glasscock III
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)
1
743 A.2d 180 (Del. 1999).
2