 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schneider v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.12/26/2002
Submitted: December 10, 2002
ORDER
This 26th day of December 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court as follows:
(1) The appellants, Thomas and Linda Schneider ("Schneider"), filed a complaint seeking Personal Injury Protection benefits from appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The parties refer to this case as Schneider I. In March 2001, shortly before trial, Schneider I settled. Shortly thereafter, appellants initiated a companion suit against State Farm, alleging bad faith and seeking punitive damages. The parties refer to this case as Schneider II.
(2) On October 17, 2001, the Prothonotary issued notice to both parties that Schneider I would be dismissed pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Rule 41(e) because no action had been taken in six months. The court sent notice to Schneider's counsel, but Schneider's counsel claim they never received the notice. On December 6, 2001, the Prothonotary sent an order to both parties dismissing Schneider I. Appellants' counsel, according to their brief, received the dismissal order on January 8, 2002. Appellants sent a letter to the assigned judge asking that the case be reopened. Appellants needed Schneider I reopened because State Farm sought summary judgment in Schneider II based on res judicata. On May 8, 2002, Schneider filed a formal motion to reopen and stay Schneider I until Schneider II could be decided on its merits. The trial judge denied Schneider's motion to reopen and stay Schneider I. This appeal followed.
(3) Schneider argues that the trial judge improperly denied his motion to reopen and stay because (i) Schneider has no record of receiving the Rule 41(e) notice, and (ii) Schneider had been involved in the companion bad faith case, Schneider II, before the Rule 41(e) dismissal notice.
(4) Schneider's primary argument is that he never received the Rule 41(e) notice of dismissal. There is a presumption, albeit rebuttable, that mail, correctly addressed, stamped and mailed was received by the person to whom it was addressed. Merely denying receipt does not rebut the presumption. Appellants have presented no reason why they never received the notice nor why the notice was never returned as undeliverable to the Post Office or to the sender. Schneider's statement that counsel did not receive notice is not enough to rebut the presumption that the notice, addressed and mailed, was not delivered.
(5) Schneider also argues that because Schneider II is based on "what occurred in Schneider I," and State Farm is raising res judicata as a defense in Schneider II, Schneider I should be reopened and stayed until Schneider II can be resolved on the merits. There are two reasons why Schneider I should not be reopened. First, Schneider must show "extraordinary circumstances" to reopen a judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). Schneider settled his case with State Farm, and for eight months there was no activity in the case. There is nothing extraordinary about a case being dismissed under these circumstances. Second, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by dismissing the case because there was "nothing else to be done in [Schneider I]." Schneider I was settled and dismissed. If the trial judge were to reopen the case, there would be nothing else to decide. Schneider abandoned Schneider I, and now wants it reopened to preclude State Farm from asserting res judicata in Schneider II. The trial judge is within his discretion to deny a motion to reopen a case that was dismissed under Rule 41(e) under these circumstances.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby
Page 1 2 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|