Del. Court: Insurer Can't Rely on Policy's Forum Selection Clause Added Post-Accident
A Delaware trial court has denied an insurer's motion to dismiss a lawsuit on the basis of a forum selection clause that the insurer added to the insured's policy after she was involved in the accident that was the subject of her suit.
May 21, 2019 at 02:42 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is reprinted with permission from the Insurance Coverage Law Center, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
A Delaware trial court has denied an insurer's motion to dismiss an insured's lawsuit on the basis of a forum selection clause that the insurer added to the insured's policy after she was involved in the accident that was the subject of her suit.
The Case
After Courtney M. Zern was injured in an August 7, 2016 motor vehicle collision in Delaware, the tortfeasor's liability insurance carrier tendered the limit of its liability coverage. Ms. Zern then sued Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company in a Delaware state court to recover underinsured motorist benefits (“UIM”) under her Allstate policy.
Allstate moved to dismiss Ms. Zern's UIM claim, asserting that she had improperly filed her action in Delaware because an endorsement to the policy required that she sue in her home county in Pennsylvania.
Ms. Zern opposed the motion to dismiss. She asserted that Delaware was an appropriate jurisdiction for her lawsuit and that the endorsement cited by Allstate containing the forum selection provision upon which the insurer relied did not apply to the policy at the time of the collision.
The Allstate Policy
The Allstate policy provided:
If the insured person and we do not agree on that person's right to receive damages or on the amount . . . then the disagreement will be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction. Any and all lawsuits related in any way to this coverage shall be brought . . . in the county in which your address shown on the Policy Declarations is located.
The Court's Decision
The court denied Allstate's motion.
In its decision, the court explained that the policy went into effect on July 23, 2016 but that the endorsement was not incorporated into the policy until August 7, 2016, the day of the accident, due to a “change” in the policy.
The court added that the “change” in the policy was noted to be the deletion of a vehicle – the vehicle totaled as a result of Ms. Zern's accident.
In other words, the court found, the forum selection provision relied on by Allstate “was generated as a result of the accident and was not in effect at the time of the accident.”
The court concluded that because the August 7th endorsement was not in effect at the time of the accident, Allstate had not established that Ms. Zern's complaint had been improperly filed in Delaware.
The case is Zern v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., No. N18C-11-036 FWW (Del. Super. Ct. April 26, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Joel H. Fredricks, Esquire, Weik, Nitsche & Dougherty, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff. Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire, Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. Meyerowitz is the director of the Insurance Coverage Law Center and editor-in-chief of journals on insurance law, banking law, bankruptcy law, energy law, government contracting law, and privacy and cybersecurity law, among other subjects. He can be contacted at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCompanies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Discusses Teaching Tech to Juries
Navigating the SEC's Marketing Rule: Compliance Challenges and Legal Insights
16 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250