Submitted: July 24, 2018
Defendant Allstate's Motion for Summary Judgment. Denied.
C. Gill, Esq., Law Office of Edward C. Gill, P. A.,
Georgetown, Delaware 19947, Attorney for Plaintiff
Thomas McNelis, Esq., Young & McNelis, Attorney for
Defendant Allstate Insurance Company
P. Bennett, Esq., Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers,
LLP, Citizens Bank Center, Attorney for Defendant John Frye
matter is presently before the Court on the motion of
Defendant Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate")
for summary judgment against Plaintiff Kelly Rooks
("Rooks"). The Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For
the foregoing reasons, Allstate's Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
FACTS AND PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
case stems from a three-car automobile accident on Sussex
Highway near Bridgeville, Delaware. The first vehicle
involved was driven by Kolby Kauffman ("Kauffman"),
the second was operated by Rooks, and the third was driven by
John Frye ("Frye"). All three vehicles involved
were traveling in the left northbound lane of Sussex Highway.
As the drivers approached the intersection of Sussex Highway
and Redden Road, traffic slowed to a stop. Rooks was unable
to stop in time and collided with Kauffman's vehicle.
Frye was also unable to stop and collided with Rooks'
vehicle, causing her to hit Kauffman a second time. There is
conflicting testimony concerning whether the stop in traffic
was caused by the actions of an unidentified minivan
traveling in the left lane in front of Kauffman or the red
traffic light at the upcoming intersection.
result of the accident, Rooks filed this suit alleging the
accident was caused by Frye's negligence as well as the
negligence of the unidentified minivan driver. The claim
against the minivan driver was filed under Rooks'
Uninsured Motorist policy with Allstate. Allstate now moves
for Summary Judgement against that portion of Rooks'
claim. According to Allstate, no admissible
evidence was proffered by Rooks to show that the unidentified
minivan committed any negligent act that proximately caused
the collision. Rooks opposes the Motion. She claims that
sufficient facts have been alleged to allow the claim to
proceed to the jury.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court may grant summary judgment if "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of
law." The moving party bears the initial burden
of showing no material issues of fact are
present. If the moving party properly supports
their motion, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party
to rebut the contention that no material issues of fact
exist. In considering a motion for summary
judgment, the Court must review the record in a light most
favorable to the non-moving party. The Delaware Supreme Court
illustrates the parameters of granting summary judgment as
Under no circumstances, however, will summary judgment be
granted when, from the evidence produced, there is a
reasonable indication that a material fact is in dispute. Nor
will summary judgment be granted if, upon an examination of
all the facts, it seems desirable to inquire thoroughly into