Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01324-JJF-LPS Document 224 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 3
Murphy Spadaro & Landon
ATTORNEYS
1011 CENTRE ROAD, SUITE 210
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19805
PHONE 3oz.4m.ex¤o ??92·‘m·8l9l
,i§Il.9£:l.iJEi£L!3.l§..l..h}.`;&`.-C9lll
FAX 3U2.4?2.8135
September 19, 2006
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
844 North King Street, Room 4209
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Eames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
C.A. No.: 04-CV-1324KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
Briefing has now closed on the Eames plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of` the
Court's August 29, 2006 Memorandum Opinion. We therefore write to respectfully request oral
argument on that motion.
Under ordinary circumstances, a request for oral argument need not and should not
address the merits ofthe motion for which reargument is sought. But we do believe, with all
respect, that the circumstances here are extraordinary. Specifically, Nationwide's brief on this
motion establishes beyond question that the policy text is not a true source for the amount of PIP
limits. Nationwide has conceded, in fact, that the Eames's current PIP limits are other than as
stated in the policy text —— the same policy text that was issued in 1994. This confirms what we
have argued all along: that the policy always sets forth the statutory minimum PIP limits, with
the actual PIP limits (including any additional PIP limits) established by extraneous documents,
like those we have assembled from Nationwide's insurance agents.
Nationwide's concession calls into question not just the Court's August 29, 2006
Memorandum Opinion, but the Court’s earlier decision dismissing the Eames's contract claims.
Because it is now indisputably clear that the policy text is not an unambiguous source of the PIP
limits, the existing law of the case —— which rests largely on the proposition that the policy text is
an unambiguous source for those limits —— is badly in need of` revisiting.
In short, there comes a time when zealous advocacy (which we are bound to give) calls
for the impassioned plea. We hope the Court will excuse us for offering one. More than this, we
hope the Court will permit oral argument on this motion, and conduct a ground-up review of
these crucial issues.
isszsv

Case 1:04-cv-01324-JJF-LPS Document 224 Filed O9/19/2006 Page 2 of 3
The Hon. Kent A. Jordan
September 19, 2006
Page 2
We appreciate the Court's patience and indulgence.
Respectfully,
fsf John S. Spadaro
John S. Spadaro
JSSfslr
cc: Curtis P. Cheyney, 111, Esq. (by electronic filing)
Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. (by electronic tiling)
John P. Marino, Esq. (by electronic tiling)
izszsa

Case 1:04-cv—O1324-JJF—LPS Document 224 Filed O9/19/2006 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS A. EAMES, ROBERTA L. EAMES )
and TAMMY EAMES, on behalf of )
themselves and all others )
similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) C.A. No. 04-CV-1324KAJ
)
v. )
)
NATIONIWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk
ofthe Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such ti1ing(s) to the following:
Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq.
Swartz Campbell LLC
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1130
P.O. Box 330
Wilmington, DE 19899
MURPHY SPADARO & LANDON
fsf John S. Sgadaro
John S. Spadaro, No. 3155
1011 Centre Road, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19805
(302) 472-8100
Attorneys for plaintiffs
Thomas A. Eames, Roberta L. Eames and
Tammy Eames (on behalf of themselves and
September 19, 2006 all others similarly situated)
135112