IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
PEGGY GREEN & LIONELL FLAMER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CPU4-13-003662 ) PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. )
Decided: March 18, 2015
Jeffrey S. Cianciulli, Esquire Thomas E. Hanson, Esquire 824 N. Market Street Mall Morris James, LLP Suite 800 500 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19801 Suite 1500 Attorneys for Defendant Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DECISION
This matter is before the Court on PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“PNC”)
motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 12(c) and
motion to dismiss, based upon the statute of limitations.
The facts from which this dispute arises centers upon whether there exists credit life
insurance at the time of Plaintiff Green’s husband’s death in June 2009. The pleadings allege
that on May 1, 1997, Peggy Green and George Green (her husband) obtained a home equity
line of credit from PNC. As a part of the loan agreement, the Green purchased credit life insurance in the amount of $25,000.00, from Union Security Life Insurance Company
effective May 23, 19971, at which time George Green was age 58. George died June 2009 at
age 70. On July 6, 2009, PNC sent a letter to Peggy Green indicating that the life insurance
coverage only allowed for a single claim for each account.2 On July 10, 2009, Lionell Flamer,
a former party to this proceeding sent a letter to PNC essentially seeking clarification of the
insurance status on the accounts.3
On August 25, 2009, Minnesota Life Insurance Company wrote to Delaware
Consumer Services Division regarding the Green’s claim. That letter indicated that the
policy provisions provided that coverage stops when the insured reaches the age 66.
Therefore, since George reached the age of 66 on May 23, 2005, there was no coverage at
the time of his death.4
Because PNC failed to pay on the alleged insurance coverage, Peggy Green and
Lionell Flamer brought this action for breach of contract. They allege when they obtained
the equity loan and life insurance coverage and on October 3, 2008, PNC employees
promised that in the event of Peggy or George Green’s demise, their equity line [credit]5
would be forgiven. They further allege they relied on that promise and did not take any
other action to cover the loan. Finally, Plaintiff argues that it would constitute an injustice to
not enforce the promise by PNC.
1 Union Security Life Insurance Company policy. 2 PNC letter of July 6, 2009. 3 Flamer letter to PNC, July 10, 2009. On February 21, 2014, this Court granted PNC’s motion to dismiss all claims of Lionell Flamer. 4 Minnesota Life Insurance letter to Consumer Services Division dated August 25, 2009. 5 Plaintiff’s Complaint filed December 6, 2013.
2 On February 21, 2014, this Court granted PNC’s motion to dismiss the claims of
Lionell Flamer and denied the motion as to Peggy Green. PNC filed its answer on March
13, 2014. In its pleadings, PNC denied the claim and raised numerous affirmative defenses. 6
A pre-trial conference was held in these matters on March 17, 2014. On March 14, 2014,
PNC brought this motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss based upon statute
of limitations.
On July 1, 2014, Peggy Green filed a response to the motion, which she attached a
letter from PNC Bank dated July 6, 2009. The letter indicates that the credit life which may
have been purchased only allows a single claim for each account, and if you wish to pay off
the account with life insurance, they need to give notice.
The second document attached to the letter was from Minnesota Life Insurance
Company, dated August 25, 2009. It stated “. . . Review of these documents (referring to
documents obtained from PNC Bank) shows that George and Peggy Green elected Joint
Credit Life Insurance at the time of their Home Equity Line of Credit Loan with PNC Bank.
This documentation also shows that insurance coverage terminated when the older of the
two debtors turned age 66. As a result, there was no coverage for Mr. Green on the date of
his death . . . 7
The Minnesota Life letter also provided that upon reaching the maximum age under
the Insurance Certificate which is 66, coverage stops for that individual but continues for the
Debtor if such individual agrees to pay the premium for single debtor coverage. It
6 PNC’s Answer filed on March 13, 2014. 7 The language in the policy clearly states under the Subsection: “When Insurance stops. The insurance will stop on your monthly billing date after the following events: (a) you reach the Maximum Age indicated in the schedule. If joint coverage is provided, the insurance stops when the older of the Debtor or Co-Debtor reaches the Maximum Age shown in the Schedule; coverage will continue in force on the other debtor if he so requests and agrees to pay the premium for the single debtor coverage; . . .”
3 concludes by stating that from the loan history, as of July 2005, when George reached age
66, the premium being assessed to the loan switched to Single Credit Life on Peggy Green.
The insurance schedule attached to the letter indicates the maximum age for coverage is 66
and lists the date of birth for George A. Green as May 23, 1939.
Analysis
The provisions of Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 12(c) provides in relevant part that:
After the pleadings are closed, but within time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. If a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56,and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.”
In considering a motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court must accept all
well-pled allegations of the Complaint as true, and assume the presentation of evidence
sufficient to support those allegations. Additionally, the motion will not be granted if the
Plaintiffs may recover under any conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under
the Complaint.8 The Court must view the facts pleaded and the inferences to be drawn from
such facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Finally, for purposes of the
motion, the moving party admits the allegations of the opposing party’s pleading, but
contends that they are insufficient as a matter of law.9
8 Leary v. Eschelweck, 2012 WL 1664236 (Del. Super.) 9 Hannegan et al. v. Cardiology Consultants P.A., et al. 2007 WL 4200811 (Del. Super.); Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Leveraged Equity Fund, II, L.P., Del.Supr., 624 A.2d 1199 (1993)
4 Moreover, if when considering such a motion, matters or allegations outside the
pleadings are presented to or not excluded by the Court, the motion then shall be treated as
one for summary judgment and analyzed under Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 56.
PNC argues that its motion is appropriate under Rule 12(c) because there are no
material issues of fact in dispute and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Additionally, it alleges that Green failed to bring her claim within the three-year statutory
period under 10 Del.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
PEGGY GREEN & LIONELL FLAMER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CPU4-13-003662 ) PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. )
Decided: March 18, 2015
Jeffrey S. Cianciulli, Esquire Thomas E. Hanson, Esquire 824 N. Market Street Mall Morris James, LLP Suite 800 500 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19801 Suite 1500 Attorneys for Defendant Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DECISION
This matter is before the Court on PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“PNC”)
motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 12(c) and
motion to dismiss, based upon the statute of limitations.
The facts from which this dispute arises centers upon whether there exists credit life
insurance at the time of Plaintiff Green’s husband’s death in June 2009. The pleadings allege
that on May 1, 1997, Peggy Green and George Green (her husband) obtained a home equity
line of credit from PNC. As a part of the loan agreement, the Green purchased credit life insurance in the amount of $25,000.00, from Union Security Life Insurance Company
effective May 23, 19971, at which time George Green was age 58. George died June 2009 at
age 70. On July 6, 2009, PNC sent a letter to Peggy Green indicating that the life insurance
coverage only allowed for a single claim for each account.2 On July 10, 2009, Lionell Flamer,
a former party to this proceeding sent a letter to PNC essentially seeking clarification of the
insurance status on the accounts.3
On August 25, 2009, Minnesota Life Insurance Company wrote to Delaware
Consumer Services Division regarding the Green’s claim. That letter indicated that the
policy provisions provided that coverage stops when the insured reaches the age 66.
Therefore, since George reached the age of 66 on May 23, 2005, there was no coverage at
the time of his death.4
Because PNC failed to pay on the alleged insurance coverage, Peggy Green and
Lionell Flamer brought this action for breach of contract. They allege when they obtained
the equity loan and life insurance coverage and on October 3, 2008, PNC employees
promised that in the event of Peggy or George Green’s demise, their equity line [credit]5
would be forgiven. They further allege they relied on that promise and did not take any
other action to cover the loan. Finally, Plaintiff argues that it would constitute an injustice to
not enforce the promise by PNC.
1 Union Security Life Insurance Company policy. 2 PNC letter of July 6, 2009. 3 Flamer letter to PNC, July 10, 2009. On February 21, 2014, this Court granted PNC’s motion to dismiss all claims of Lionell Flamer. 4 Minnesota Life Insurance letter to Consumer Services Division dated August 25, 2009. 5 Plaintiff’s Complaint filed December 6, 2013.
2 On February 21, 2014, this Court granted PNC’s motion to dismiss the claims of
Lionell Flamer and denied the motion as to Peggy Green. PNC filed its answer on March
13, 2014. In its pleadings, PNC denied the claim and raised numerous affirmative defenses. 6
A pre-trial conference was held in these matters on March 17, 2014. On March 14, 2014,
PNC brought this motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss based upon statute
of limitations.
On July 1, 2014, Peggy Green filed a response to the motion, which she attached a
letter from PNC Bank dated July 6, 2009. The letter indicates that the credit life which may
have been purchased only allows a single claim for each account, and if you wish to pay off
the account with life insurance, they need to give notice.
The second document attached to the letter was from Minnesota Life Insurance
Company, dated August 25, 2009. It stated “. . . Review of these documents (referring to
documents obtained from PNC Bank) shows that George and Peggy Green elected Joint
Credit Life Insurance at the time of their Home Equity Line of Credit Loan with PNC Bank.
This documentation also shows that insurance coverage terminated when the older of the
two debtors turned age 66. As a result, there was no coverage for Mr. Green on the date of
his death . . . 7
The Minnesota Life letter also provided that upon reaching the maximum age under
the Insurance Certificate which is 66, coverage stops for that individual but continues for the
Debtor if such individual agrees to pay the premium for single debtor coverage. It
6 PNC’s Answer filed on March 13, 2014. 7 The language in the policy clearly states under the Subsection: “When Insurance stops. The insurance will stop on your monthly billing date after the following events: (a) you reach the Maximum Age indicated in the schedule. If joint coverage is provided, the insurance stops when the older of the Debtor or Co-Debtor reaches the Maximum Age shown in the Schedule; coverage will continue in force on the other debtor if he so requests and agrees to pay the premium for the single debtor coverage; . . .”
3 concludes by stating that from the loan history, as of July 2005, when George reached age
66, the premium being assessed to the loan switched to Single Credit Life on Peggy Green.
The insurance schedule attached to the letter indicates the maximum age for coverage is 66
and lists the date of birth for George A. Green as May 23, 1939.
Analysis
The provisions of Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 12(c) provides in relevant part that:
After the pleadings are closed, but within time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. If a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56,and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.”
In considering a motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court must accept all
well-pled allegations of the Complaint as true, and assume the presentation of evidence
sufficient to support those allegations. Additionally, the motion will not be granted if the
Plaintiffs may recover under any conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under
the Complaint.8 The Court must view the facts pleaded and the inferences to be drawn from
such facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Finally, for purposes of the
motion, the moving party admits the allegations of the opposing party’s pleading, but
contends that they are insufficient as a matter of law.9
8 Leary v. Eschelweck, 2012 WL 1664236 (Del. Super.) 9 Hannegan et al. v. Cardiology Consultants P.A., et al. 2007 WL 4200811 (Del. Super.); Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Leveraged Equity Fund, II, L.P., Del.Supr., 624 A.2d 1199 (1993)
4 Moreover, if when considering such a motion, matters or allegations outside the
pleadings are presented to or not excluded by the Court, the motion then shall be treated as
one for summary judgment and analyzed under Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 56.
PNC argues that its motion is appropriate under Rule 12(c) because there are no
material issues of fact in dispute and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Additionally, it alleges that Green failed to bring her claim within the three-year statutory
period under 10 Del.C. § 8106, which provides no action based in contact shall be brought
after the expiration of 3 years from the accruing of the cause of such action.
PNC argues the cause of action accrues at the time of the breach, which is the time of
George Green’s death. Thus, if PNC had an obligation to pay under the insurance contract,
the date of June 2009 is the date when the claim accrued. Therefore, under the provisions of
Section 8106, Green was required to bring the action for breach on or before June 2012. In
this matter, Green did not bring her claim by filing this action until December 6, 2013,
which is eighteen (18) months after the statute of limitations period had run.
Green in her answer to PNC’s motions argues that the nature of the relationship and
the actions of PNC makes it difficult for the Court to determine the date when the breach
occurred and when the statute had begun to run. She points to her letter of May 12th which
indicates the issue of forgiveness for the loan was under review. She further argues that
based upon Delaware “time of discovery” rule, applicable to inherently unknowable injury
where the plaintiff is blamelessly ignorant, that there was no basis for her to know that there
was no coverage.
5 In reviewing the pleading and the documents submitted, it is clear that coverage for
George Green terminated when he reached the age 66. The argument that PNC somehow
extended that coverage by its letter of July 6, 2009 is not supported by the facts. Even
assuming that PNC had the authority to extend coverage, it would require an amendment to
the insurance contract in writing. Additionally, Green’s argument that she relied upon
representation of PNC and did not obtain additional coverage is not sufficient to support an
extension of the contract or amend the coverage clause. The contract is clear that, upon
reaching age 66, coverage is terminated. Both Greens signed the agreement and there is no
ambiguity in the terms and conditions. Her argument that she relied upon PNC for the
interpretation that there is coverage is not reasonable.
Accordingly, PNC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is Granted. Because I
conclude PNC is entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings, I need not reach the statute of
limitations claim.
So Ordered
_______________________________ Alex J. Smalls Chief Judge Flamer-OP Mar 12 2015