Giordano v. Czerwinski
| Citation | 59 Del. 226,216 A.2d 874 |
| Parties | , 59 Del. 226 Martha G. GIORDANO, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Francis A. CZERWINSKI, Defendant Below, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1966 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Upon appeal from judgment on the pleadings granted in favor of the defendant by the Superior Court of New Castle County. Affirmed.
Martha G. Giordano, pro se.
Edmund D. Lyons and Eduard F. von Wettberg, III, of Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, for defendant below, appellee.
This appeal involves the propriety of the Superior Court's computation of the period of limitations under the circumstances of the case.
The matter is presented on the pleadings: By their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that on January 30, 1960 they purchased a second automobile and requested the defendant, through whom they had previously acquired automobile insurance, to add the new car to the existing policy. It is alleged that the defendant stated that he would ascertain the amount of the premium and that, in the meanwhile, the plaintiffs could assume that the new automobile was covered by insurance. The plaintiffs further alleged that on February 2, 1960 the automobile was involved in an accident; that upon telephoning the defendant to report the accident, the plaintiffs were informed for the first time that the automobile was not covered with insurance; that the defendant had never been licensed to sell insurance, but that the fact was not learned until March 1964 when inquiry was made of the State Insurance Commissioner; that the previous insurance which the plaintiffs thought they had purchased from the defendant had actually been procured by him from another agent. The plaintiffs further alleged that in December 1962 a judgment was rendered against them in an action arising from the accident; that they were obliged to pay the judgment, counsel fees and costs; and that their premium rates for automobile insurance have increased as a result.
The instant action was commenced on May 20, 1964, asserting two causes of action: (1) a contractual right of the plaintiffs to be indemnified by the defendant; and (2) fraud by the defendant in falsely representing that he was licensed to sell automobile insurance. The defense of limitations was raised. The Court below granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Martha G. Giordano, appeals.
We agree with the Court below that no contractual right to indemnity is made to appear from the complaint; that the cause of action asserted is actually for breach of a promise to provide or secure insurance coverage and should be treated as such. We think, too, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Layton
...accepted legal principle in the Statute of Limitations context. Delaware has consistently followed this rule. Giordano v. Czerwinski, 216 A.2d 874 (Del.Sup.Ct. 1966); Bovay v. H. M. Byllesby & Co., 27 Del.Ch. 33, 29 A.2d 801 (Ch. 1943); Trainer v. Deemer, 5 W.W.Harr. 396, 35 Del. 396, 166 A......
-
Freedman v. Beneficial Corp., Civ. A. No. 4541.
...the plaintiff discovered, or could have discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence, his right to sue. Giordano v. Czerwinski, Del.Supr., 216 A.2d 874, 876 (1966). "Once a defendant has shown that a claim is time barred by the applicable statute of limitations, it is incumbent upon t......
-
Giuliano v. Brian Ferdinand, Case No. 16-10202 (KG)
...by the exercise of reasonable diligence.'" Smith v. Whelan, 566 Fed. Appx. 177, 179 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Giordano v. Czerwinski, 216 A.2d 874, 876 (Del. 1966)). The remaining fiduciary allegations by the Trustee consist of the Pre-IPO Deal and the QuantX misrepresentations. Through its i......
-
Lecates v. Hertrich Pontiac Buick Co.
...of action may toll the statute of limitations. See Hiznay v. Strange, Del.Super., 415 A.2d 489, 491-92 (1980); Giordano v. Czerwinski, Del.Supr., 216 A.2d 874, 876 (1966). But a claim of fraudulent concealment requires the twin showing of (a) the defendant's knowledge of the alleged wrong, ......