NANCY HART, an individual, and SCOTT HART, her husband, Plaintiffs,
DANIEL PARKER, an individual, THE ESTATE OF DANIEL PARKER deceased, DANIEL PARKER SR., MICHAEL PARKER, LINDA WOTHERS, jointly, severally and/or in the alternative, Defendants.
Submitted: July 23, 2019
Defendant The Estate of Daniel Parker's Motion to Dismiss
Melissa L. Rhoads, Tighe & Cottrell, PA, Wilmington,
Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
L. Silar, Esquire, Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware, Attorney for Estate of Daniel Parker.
HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOTT, JR. JUDGE
the Court is Defendant The Estate of Daniel Parker's
("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss. For the following
reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Nancy Hart and Scott Hart ("Plaintiffs") filed a
complaint on January 10, 2019 alleging negligence against
Daniel Parker and the other defendants. Plaintiffs'
claims arise out of a car accident that occurred on January
13, 2017 between Daniel Parker and Nancy Hart. Plaintiffs
allege Daniel Parker's actions caused injuries to
24, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. Defendant
requests this Court dismiss it from the action because no
estate was ever opened for Daniel Parker and thus, Plaintiffs
have sued an entity that does not exist. Defendant argues
that Plaintiffs cannot sue an entity which does not exist. In
the alternative, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claims
fall outside the time limitation for claims brought against
an estate pursuant to 12 Del. C. § 2102.
Finally, Defendant argues that even if an estate were to be
opened for Daniel Parker now, Plaintiffs claims would be
time-barred by 10 Del C. § 8119.
26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Response to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's
insurance carrier failed to notify Plaintiffs of the
applicable statute of limitations, as required by 18 Del
C. § 3914. Because the insurance carrier failed to
notify Plaintiffs of the applicable statute of limitations,
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant is now estopped from
raising the statute of limitations as a defense. Finally,
Plaintiffs argue that the actions of Defendant's
insurance carrier indicated that Mr. Parker was not deceased
and thus, the doctrine of equitable estoppel requires denying
23, 2019, Defendant filed its Reply to Plaintiffs'
Response. Defendant argues that 18 Del. C. §
3914 is inapplicable to Plaintiffs claims for two reasons.
First, Plaintiffs filed their claim within the two-year
statute of limitations. Second, the Defendant's insurance
carrier is not a party to Plaintiffs' action. Defendant
also argues that equitable estoppel is not proper here
because nothing in the record indicates that Defendant's
insurance carrier was made aware of Mr. Parker's death.
Court's standard of review on a motion to dismiss is
well-settled. The Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as
true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party. The motion will be denied when ...