 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanchez v. American Independent Insurance Co.10/17/2005
Submitted: September 7, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
This 17th day of October, 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court as follows:
(1) The plaintiff-below appellant, Miguel Sanchez, appeals from a Superior Court order entering summary judgment in favor of the defendant-below, American Independent Insurance Company. Sanchez was accidentally shot in the head while riding as a passenger in his mother's vehicle. Sanchez argues that the Superior Court erred in holding that he was not entitled to recover personal injury protection benefits through his mother's automobile insurance policy, issued by American Independent. Because Sanchez's injury did not arise out of the use of an automobile, the Superior Court correctly held that the carrier could legally deny Sanchez's claim. We therefore affirm.
(2) On May 2, 2001, Sanchez was riding in the front passenger seat of a vehicle owned by his mother, Elaine DeJesus-Davila. Unbeknownst to Sanchez or his mother, two pedestrians, at a nearby intersection, were involved in an argument. As DeJesus-Davila drove through the intersection, one of the pedestrians fired a gun at the other. The bullet missed its intended target, and passed through the rear window of the vehicle, striking Sanchez in the head.
(3) The American Independent policy insuring DeJesus-Davila's vehicle included a provision for a maximum of $15,000 in no-fault PIP benefits. In September 2003, Sanchez filed an action in Superior Court, seeking PIP benefits from American Independent. American Independent denied coverage, contending that the policy did not apply to Sanchez's injuries because they did not arise out of the use of the motor vehicle. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Superior Court granted American Independent's motion and denied Sanchez's motion. Sanchez appeals from that order.
(4) On appeal, Sanchez contends that the Superior Court erroneously concluded that Sanchez was not entitled to PIP benefits under the insurance policy. This Court reviews de novo a decision granting summary judgment, to determine whether the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Here, the only issue on this appeal is whether American Independent properly denied Sanchez PIP benefits under the policy. This Court reviews the interpretation of language in contracts, including insurance contracts, de novo.
(5) Under Delaware's no fault insurance statute, 21 Del. C. ยง 2118(a)(2), the owner of a motor vehicle is required to have insurance that covers medical expenses and lost earnings for persons injured in an automobile accident. That coverage, referred to as "PIP" benefits, must be at least $15,000. The policy at issue in this case provided:
[American Independent] will pay . personal injury protection benefits to or for an "insured" who sustains "bodily injury." The bodily injury must:
1. Be caused by an accident; and
2. Arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a "motor vehicle" as a "motor vehicle."
(6) American Independent contends that Sanchez is not entitled to coverage under that provision because his injuries did not "arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of a motor vehicle. The Superior Court agreed with American Independent after applying the test articulated by this Court in Nationwide General Insurance Co. v. Royal.
(7) In Royal, this Court adopted a three-part test to determine whether an injury has arisen out of the operation
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|