No obligation to provide post-accident coverage to excluded driver covered by analogous policy despite failure to provide requisite notice of exclusion.

The plaintiff was injured in a one-vehicle collision as a passenger of a car driven by Mr. King, an adult resident of his parents’ home. Mr. King was excluded from his own mother’s State Farm policy due to his poor driving record, but remained insured through his father’s identical policy with Progressive. The injured plaintiff dismissed her claims against Mr. King and his father in exchange for the proceeds of the Progressive policy and an assignment of any rights the Kings had against State Farm. The plaintiff argued that State Farm did not provide requisite notice to Mr. King of his exclusion under 18 Del.C. §3909 and §3905, and even if the exclusion was deemed valid, State Farm’s non-owned vehicle provision afforded coverage. The court rejected both arguments. First, the court concluded that, at maximum, Mr. King would be entitled to recovery of premiums paid to Progressive in excess of what he would have owed to State Farm if State Farm had complied with the statute; here, there was no indication that Progressive’s premiums were higher. Second, the court found that the State Farm non-owned vehicle provision was inapplicable because Mr. King’s vehicle did not meet the policy’s definition of “non-owned car.”

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter 2013