Preview:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ) ) C.A. No. 05C-10-039 (JTV) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHARLES F. MENDES and ) JOSEPH E. BRADLEY, RICHARD E) CRAMER, THOMAS M. ) LEONARD, and KATHLEEN ) REYNOLDS, ) ) Defendants. ) Submitted: February 23, 2007 Decided: May 31, 2007 Neil R. Lapinski, Esq., Swartz Campbell, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Plaintiff. T. George Lees, Esq., Rawle & Henderson, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Bradley. Gregory A. Morris, Esq., Liguori, Morris & Yiengst, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Cramer. Kelly D. Geloff, Esq., Tunnell & Raysor, Georgetown, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Leonard. Jeffrey J. Clark, Esq., Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Reynolds. Charles F. Mendes, Pro Se. Joseph E. Bradley, Pro Se.

Upon Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment DENIED

VAUGHN, President Judge OPINION On October 25, 2005, Nationwide General Insurance Company ("Nationwide") instituted this declaratory judgment action against defendants Joseph Bradley ("Mr. Bradley")and Charles Mendes ("Mr. Mendes") to determine its duty to indemnify or defend either in a personal injury action pending against them in this Court.1 On February 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the underlying personal injury action, Richard Cramer ("Mr. Cramer"), Kathleen Reynolds ("Mrs. Reynolds") and Thomas Leonard ("Mr. Leonard"),were joined as defendants in this case. The underlying tort action is the result of a car accident that occurred in Kent County, Delaware on April 19, 2003. The plaintiffs in the underlying action allege that they were seriously injured when Mr. Bradley ran the 1991 Ford Thunderbird he was driving through a stop sign, colliding with their vehicle.2 Included as a defendant in the underlying action is Mr. Mendes, Mr. Bradley's uncle. The defendants in this action maintain that Mr. Mendes owned the Ford Thunderbird driven by Mr. Bradley on April 19, 2003 and that the vehicle was insured by Nationwide under Mr. Mendes' policy. The defendants assert two alternative theories of liability against Mr. Mendes:

Reynolds v. Bradley, et. al. C.A. No. 03C-11-040 RBY. Two additional personal injury actions arising from the same accident, Leonard v. Bradley, et. al. C.A. No. 05C-04-016 THG and Cramer v. Bradley, et. al. C.A. No. 05C-04-027, have been consolidated with Reynolds v. Bradley.
2

1

Plaintiffs were occupants of a 1992 Mercury Topaz at the time of the collision.

Nationwide v. Mendes, et al. C.A. No. 05C-10-039 (JTV) May 31, 2007 respondeat superior and negligent entrustment.3 Before the Court now is Nationwide's request for summary judgment, specifically, a declaration that they owe no duty to indemnify or defend Mr. Bradley and/or Mr. Mendes in the underlying personal injury action. Mrs. Reynolds, Mr. Leonard and Mr. Cramer have opposed Nationwide's motion for summary judgment.4 STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary Judgment should be rendered if the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.5 The facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 6 Summary judgment will not be granted if the record indicates that a material fact is in dispute or if it seems desirable to inquire more thoroughly into the facts in order to clarify the application of law to the circumstances.7 DISCUSSION Nationwide contends that legal title to the 1991 Ford Thunderbird passed from Mr. Mendes to Mr. Bradley on November 26, 2002 when both parties endorsed the

3

Whether Mr. Mendes is in fact liable under either theory is not at issue in this motion.

Mrs. Reynolds, Mr. Leonard and Mr. Cramer filed separate, but virtually identical motions in opposition to Nationwide's motion for summary judgment. For convenience, Mrs. Reynolds, Mr. Leonard and Mr. Cramer will be collectively referred to as "the defendants" throughout this Opinion.
5

4

Superior Court Civil Rule 56(c). Guy v. Judicial Nominating Comm'n, 659 A.2d 777, 780 (Del. Super. 1995). Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Devlin, 1998 Del. Super. LEXIS 109 at *9. 3

6

7

Nationwide v. Mendes, et al. C.A. No. 05C-10-039 (JTV) May 31, 2007 vehicle's certificate of title and registration card during an alleged sale.8 As evidence of the transfer, Nationwide has proffered the following: a photocopy of the vehicle's purported bill of sale;9 a photocopy of the purported back of the vehicle's certificate of title,10 which contains no vehicle identifying information; a photocopy of the front of the vehicle's registration card;11 and finally, a photocopy of the purported back of the vehicle's registration card, which again, contains no vehicle identifying information.12 The defendants argue that Nationwide's proffered evidence regarding the transfer of legal title is insufficient as a matter of law to rebut the Division of Motor Vehicles' ("DMV") registration records, which list Mr. Mendes as the owner on April 19, 2003. Under Delaware laws regulating ownership of a motor vehicle, an owner is "a

Delvin, 1998 Del. Super. LEXIS 109 (holding that legal title to a vehicle passed when title was endorsed by the seller and buyer). The alleged bill of sale was signed as follows: Seller, "Charles Mendes," Buyer, "Joseph E. Bradley," and Witness, "Paul E. Bradley." The alleged bill of sale indicates a November 26, 2002 sale date. The photocopy of the purported back of the title indicates an assignment of title on November 26, 2002 from Charles Mendes to Joseph Bradley. The photocopy of the front of the vehicle's registration card indicates that Charles Mendes had the vehicle titled in his name as of May 23, 2001, but is otherwise unhelpful. The photocopy of the purported back of the registration card is signed by "Charles Mendes," as seller, and "Joseph Bradley," as buyer. It indicates a November 26, 2002 sale date. 4
12 11 10 9

8

Nationwide v. Mendes, et al. C.A. No. 05C-10-039 (JTV) May 31, 2007 person who holds legal title of a vehicle..."13 "Proof that a motor vehicle is registered by a Certificate of Title in a person's name creates a prima facie case of ownership." 14 However, that presumption is rebuttable.15 Mr. Mendes testified that he filled out and mailed in the bottom portion of the vehicle's title to the DMV following the vehicle's sale. However, it is undisputed that on April 19, 2003, Mr. Mendes was still the registered owner of the 1991 Ford Thunderbird.16 The original title and registration card for the Thunderbird have not been produced, presumably, because the documents have been lost. Nationwide has produced only photocopies of documents that could, or could not be, related to the alleged November 26, 2002 transfer of title. Specifically, Nationwide has proffered what appears to be the back of a vehicle's certificate of title; however, the back of the title contains no vehicle identifying information. Additionally, the photocopy of what is purported to be the back of the vehicle's registration card contains no vehicle identifying information. I conclude that the proffered evidence is insufficient to determine as a matter of law that legal title passed from Mr. Mendes to Mr. Bradley prior to the April 19, 2003 accident. Issues remain, such as the credibility of Mr. Bradley and Mr. Mendes.

13

Devlin, 1998 Del. Super. LEXIS 109 at *11-12 citing 21 Del. C.

Download 93260.pdf

Delaware Law