Submitted: December 28, 2016
Consi derati on of Defendants' Motion for Summary
Nicholas H. Rodriguez, Esquire, Schmittinger & Rodriguez,
P.A., Dover, Delaware for Plaintiffs.
J. Connors, Esquire, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman &
Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware for Defendants.
Ramirez Lucas ("Insured") and Alfa Vision Insurance
Corporation ("Insurer") (collectively
"Defendants") filed this Motion for Summary
Judgmentagainst Mazilia Amisial and Ferana Legros
("Plaintiffs") in an action in which Plaintiffs
allege they were injured as a result of Insured's
negligence. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether 18 Del. C. § 3914 tolled the statute of
limitations with respect to the Defendants. Hence,
Defendants' motion is DENIED.
allege that they were injured on March 9, 2014, when the
Insured's vehicle hit their vehicle while it was parked
on North Church Avenue in Milford, Delaware.
time of the incident, Plaintiffs claim that the Insured was a
Delaware resident and that his vehicle was Delaware property.
Plaintiffs base this assertion upon a police report, that was
approved on March 22, 2014, listing the Insured's address
as being in Delaware. Conversely, Defendants assert that the
Insured was a resident of Virginia. Further, Defendants
allege, the Insured's car was garaged in Virginia and
registered in Virginia. Defendants support these assertions
with the renewal declarations from the Insured's
insurance policy. They support their assertion as to the
Insured's vehicle's registration information with the
police report that was approved on March 22, 2014.
Insurer is a foreign corporation, not authorized to sell
insurance in Delaware, with a business address in Tennessee.
The parties agree that the Insurer never sent Plaintiff
written notice of the statute of limitations.
filed a Complaint on April 14, 2016. On August 31, 2016, this
Court issued a scheduling order setting the date for the
close of discovery for March 6, 2018. On December 15, 2016,
Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment.
judgment is appropriate where the record exhibits no genuine
issue of material fact, and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. This Court shall consider the
"pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any" in deciding the motion. The moving party bears the
initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of material
issues of fact: The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party
to show that there are material issues of fact in
dispute. The Court views the record in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. When material
facts are in dispute, or "it seems desirable to inquire
more thoroughly into the facts, to clarify the application of
the law to the ...