Free Status Report - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—01324-JJF—LPS Document 118 Filed 11/01 /2005 Page 1 of 2
Murphy Spadaro & Landon
ATTORNEYS
1011 CENTRE ROAD, SUlTE 23.0
WILMINGTON. DELAWARE 19805
PHONE :·ro2.4?2.e1oo $02.4128101
FAX 302.4T2.B135 , .
]spadaro’crZ·nrslIaw.com
November 1, 2005
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. N0.: 04-CV-1324KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the March 28, 2005 Scheduling Order, the parties respectfully
submit this joint Interim Status Report.
This proposed class action involves issues of Personal Injury Protection (or "PIP") coverage
under 21 Del. C. §2l 18B. The Eames plaintiffs, proposed class representatives, contend that
Nationwide represents within its Delaware auto policies that insureds enjoy "full" limits of liability for
PIP, when Nationwide in fact contends that those policies provide just minimum statutory limits of
$15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident. ln‘the alternative, the Eames plaintiffs contend that
Nationwide‘s representations are actionable regardless of whether they are part of the insurance
contract. The Eames plaintiffs further contend that the disputed representations are made on
Nationwide's behalf through its Delaware insurance agents.
On the basis of these allegations, the Eames plaintiffs have pled counts for declaratory
judgment, breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, consumer fraud and civil conspiracy. They
seek compensatory and punitive damages.
Nationwide contends that it has not characterized and does not characterize Delaware PIP
limits as "full." Nationwide also contends that policy provisions in the Eames plaintiffs‘ policy, and
which set forth the limits of liability for PIP coverage, unambiguously provide for the statutory
minimum limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident. Nationwide further contends that the
disputed representations do not appear in any insurance contract issued by Nationwide, and so cannot
be a basis for relief
Nationwide denies the Eames plaintiffs' claims for relief, and denies that they are entitled to
damages.
125492

Case 1:04-cv—O1324-JJF—LPS Document 118 Filed 11/O1/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Hon. Kent A. Jordan
November 1, 2005
Page 2
There are four pending matters in issue. They include:
l. Nationwide's motion to dismiss.
2. The Eames plaintit`fs‘ motion to compel and for sanctions with respect to their initial
document requests.
3. Disputes surrounding the Eames plaintiffs' initial interrogatories and Nationwide's responses
thereto.
4. Disputes surrounding the Eames plaintiffs' second set of document requests and
Nationwide's responses thereto.
Nationwide's Motion to Dismiss
Nationwide filed its motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule l2(b)(6) on October 6,
2004. Briefing on this motion has concluded, and the Court has scheduled oral argument for
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.
Eames Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions
On October 26, 2005 the Eames plaintiffs filed their motion to compel and for sanctions
with respect to their initial document requests (and Nationwide's responses thereto). This
motion has been presented to Special Discovery Master James W. Semple. Briefing on this
motion is still in progress.
Other Discovery Disputes
Nationwide recently served responses to the Eames plaintiffs' initial interrogatories and
second set of document requests. Disputes have arisen regarding this discovery and
Nationwide's responses to it; and the parties are conferring regarding those disputes. If the
parties are unable to resolve those disputes, they will be presented promptly to the SDM for
decision.
The parties are available to address any questions regarding this report.
Respectfully,
fsf John S. Spadaro
John S. Spadaro
J SSfdam
cc: Curtis P. Cheyney, III, Esq. (by electronic filing)
125492