Cheseroni v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1979 |
| Citation | 402 A.2d 1215 |
| Parties | Clyde B. CHESERONI, Executrix of the Estate of Richard M. Cheseroni, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Upon defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Granted.
James F. Kipp of Trzuskowski & Kipp, Wilmington, for plaintiffs.
Wayne N. Elliott of Prickett, Sanders, Jones, Elliott & Kristol, Wilmington, for defendant.
Richard Cheseroni was killed and his minor daughter, Michelle, injured when the motorcycle on which they were riding was struck by another vehicle on September 5, 1976. The vehicle which struck the Cheseroni motorcycle was not covered by an insurance policy. Cheseroni's motorcycle was insured by defendant under a policy which included uninsured motorist coverage with maximum limits of $10,000 for each person and $20,000 per accident. Two automobiles owned by Cheseroni were insured by defendant under a separate policy containing the same uninsured motorist coverage.
Plaintiff, Clyde B. Cheseroni, as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband and as next friend of Michelle, brought this action for a declaratory judgment, seeking, Inter alia, to cumulate or "stack" the uninsured motorist coverages under the two policies. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment on the "stacking issue." For the purposes of the present motion, liability for the death and injuries is attributed to the uninsured motorist, and it is assumed that damages exceeded the minimum $10,000 per person/$20,000 per accident figures.
Plaintiff asserts that the "anti-stacking" language of the insurance policy is ambiguous and does not rule out stacking of coverage between two policies. Further, assuming that the anti-stacking clause does bar stacking of coverage where two vehicles are covered under one policy (as in the case of decedent's two automobiles), plaintiff attacks this provision as a violation of 18 Del.C. § 3902, which mandates uninsured motorist coverage. Because of the Court's resolution of the first issue raised by plaintiff the latter contention need not be considered.
Both policies obtained by plaintiff from defendant contained an endorsement as part of the insurance contract. Among the provisions, under section III "Limits of Liability," was the following:
Plaintiff argues that the second sentence, by use of the word "hereunder," restricts the application of the first sentence to situations where multiple vehicles are covered under One policy (and thus, by implication, excludes or creates an ambiguity as to coverage of multiple vehicles under multiple policies, as here). This is simply not the case. The meaning of the emphasized language is clear, and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Castle County v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
...in isolation, but must be read in context, and every portion of the contract deserves consideration." Cheseroni v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 402 A.2d 1215, 1217 (Del.Super.1979), aff'd, 410 A.2d 1015 (Del.1980). We discuss the application of these principles 4. The Issues on Appeal C......
-
New Castle County v. Continental Cas. Co.(CNA)
...New Castle I, at 1362; Hallowell, 443 A.2d at 926; National Union Fire Insurance Co., 558 A.2d at 1093; Cheseroni v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 402 A.2d 1215, 1217 (Del.Super.1979), aff'd, 410 A.2d 1015 The definition of the term "property damage" does not indicate at what point in ti......
-
Chesapeake Utilities Corp. v. American Home Assur.
...clause or passage of an insurance policy cannot be read in isolation. (D.I. 166 at 20 & n. 34 (citing Cheseroni v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 402 A.2d 1215, 1217 (Del.Super.Ct.1979), aff'd, 410 A.2d 1015 (Del.1980)).) Rather, it must be viewed in the context of the whole policy. Id. T......
-
Harleysville Mut. Ins. v. Sussex County, Del.
...(Del.1968). An ambiguity exists when the language in a contract permits two or more reasonable interpretations. Cheseroni v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 402 A.2d 1215, 1217 (1979), aff'd 410 A.2d 1015 (Del.1980); Hallowell, 443 A.2d at The Court begins with an examination of the relevant lang......