Legal Opinion
Nationwide Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Peebles
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided February 18, 1997No. 155, 1996, 242, 1996PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLAND, Justice, for the majority:
This is a consolidated appeal from two Superior Court judgments. The defendant-appellant in each proceeding is Nationwide Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Nationwide”). The plaintiffs-appellees in one case'are Christine Peebles and Horace Peebles. The other plaintiffs-appellees are David C. Mayo and Carol J. Mayo.
The single common legal issue in both cases relates to the underinsurance policy issued by Nationwide to each of the plaintiffs. The Superior Court was required to construe the deduction of other policies “available to the insured” that is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Frank v. Horizon Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1989
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. KennerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1990
- Hurst v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. WashingtonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1994
- Adams v. Delmarva Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dunlap v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2005
- Colonial Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. AyersSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1997
- Deptula v. Horace Mann InsuranceSupreme Court of Delaware · 2004
- White v. LIBERTY INS. CORP.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2009
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.