Bovell v. Allstate Insurance

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT BOVELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. N24C-10-240 CLS ALLSTATE INSURANCE, BRIANNA ) HERNANDEZ-CUEVAS, ) ) Defendants. )

Date Submitted: September 17, 2025 Date Decided: December 8, 2025

ORDER

Having considered Defendant Allstate Insurance’s Motion to Dismiss1 and

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,2 it appears to the Court

that:

1. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident on October 20, 2022, between

Robert Bovell (“Plaintiff”) and Briana Hernandez-Cuevas (“Ms. Hernandez-

1 See generally Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, D.I. 27 (“MTD”). 2 See generally Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, D.I. 29 (“Resp. to MTD”). Cuevas”).3 On October 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint against Ms.

Hernandez-Cuevas and her insurance company, Allstate Insurance (“Allstate”).4

2. Allstate was served by Sheriff on July 8, 2025.5

3. Allstate moved for dismissal on September 11, 2025, arguing that Plaintiff

failed to serve Allstate within the time limit for service under Superior Court Civil

Rule 4(j).6

4. Plaintiff asks the Court to deny Allstate’s motion to dismiss because Allstate

previously “argued the same issue in reference to the timeline,” and a copy of the

Complaint was mailed to Allstate.7

5. Rule 4(j) states that service of the summons and complaint must be “made

upon a defendant within 120 days after filing the complaint[.]” If the plaintiff

“cannot show good cause [for] why service was not made within that period, the

action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court’s own

initiative with notice to such party or upon motion.”8

6. Here, Allstate was not served within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint.

The Complaint was filed on October 17, 2024. Plaintiff had until February 14, 2025

3 The facts are drawn from the allegations in the Complaint. See Complaint ¶ 4, D.I. 1 (“Compl.”). 4 See generally Compl. 5 See Sheriff’s Return, D.I. 26. 6 MTD at 1. 7 See Resp. to MTD. 8 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 4(j). to serve the summons and Complaint upon Allstate but did not do so until July 8,

2025. Consequently, Plaintiff must show good cause for untimely service.

7. “Good cause” requires a showing of “excusable neglect, by a ‘demonstration

of good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable

basis for noncompliance within the time specified in the rules.’” 9 In other words,

“by showing ‘neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person

under the circumstances.’”10

8. For example, in SGH Capital SA v. ESOS Ventures, LLC, this Court declined

to find good cause when justified by informal settlement attempts and the

defendant’s knowledge of the suit within the 120-day period.11 In Doe v. Catholic

Diocese of Wilmington, Inc., the plaintiff’s inaction for 119 days after filing the

complaint did not constitute excusable neglect.12 Similarly, in Agyeman v. Epic-

Africa Foundation, this Court concluded that good cause did not exist where

“counsel was aware that process had not been served in the required time period, but

waited until after the deadline to take any definitive action to ensure service was

made.”13

9 Dolan v. Williams, 707 A.2d 34, 36 (Del. 1998) (quoting Dominic v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp., 841 F.2d 513, 517 (3d Cir. 1988)). 10 Dolan, 707 A.2d at 36 (quoting Cohen v. Brandywine Raceway Assoc., 238 A.2d 320, 325 (Del. 1968)). 11 2025 WL 3174942, at *2 (Del. Super. Nov. 12, 2025). 12 2010 WL 2106181, at *2 (Del. Super. May 26, 2010). 13 2024 WL 2375109, at *4 (Del. Super. May 22, 2024), aff’d, 338 A.3d 1270 (Del. 2025). 9. By comparison, in Dolan v. Williams, the Delaware Supreme Court found

good cause where the plaintiff’s attorney acted diligently and promptly after

mistakenly believing the complaint was served.14 This Court also found good cause

in Viars v. Surbaugh because the plaintiff “left no stone unturned in searching for”

the defendant’s new address.15

10. Like SGH Capital SA, Doe, and Agyeman, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails

to meet his burden to show good cause for the delay in effecting service on Allstate.

Although Plaintiff claims that Allstate received a copy of the Complaint when Ms.

Hernandez-Cuevas was served, that it is insufficient to constitute excusable neglect.

Plaintiff properly served Ms. Hernandez-Cuevas within two weeks of filing the

Complaint.16 Plaintiff, however, did not attempt to serve Allstate until more than six

months later. Given that Plaintiff promptly served Ms. Hernandez-Cuevas and has

been actively participating in the litigation, the Court cannot conclude on this record

that Plaintiff made a diligent and good faith effort to serve process on Allstate.

Moreover, Allstate’s knowledge of the suit does not cure untimely service of

process.

11. Additionally, Mr. Bovell’s claim that Allstate is arguing the “same issue in

reference to the timeline” is incorrect for two reasons. First, Ms. Hernandez-

14 707 A.2d at 37. 15 335 A.2d 285, 288 (Del. Super. 1975). 16 See Sheriff’s Return, D.I. 11. Cuevas—not Allstate—filed a motion to dismiss for failure to file within the statute

of limitations.17 Second, Allstate’s motion for improper service under Rule 4(j)

pertains to the procedural requirement for serving a summons and complaint on each

defendant, while the statute of limitations serves as a time-bar to the claim itself.

12. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(5) for improper service of process under Rule 4(j). The

dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE as provided by Rule 4(j).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Calvin Scott Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.

17 See generally Defendant Briana Hernandez-Cuevas’ Motion to Dismiss, D.I. 13.