Purnell-Charleston v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2011 WL 3812564 (Del. Super.)

After a bench trial, the Court held that defendant State Farm met its burden to show that it had made a "meaningful offer" of UM/UIM insurance coverage to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that no meaningful offer had been made by State Farm, and therefore, sought reformation of her insurance policy to reflect UM/UIM coverage equal to her bodily injury liability limits. The Court found that neither the plaintiff, nor the State Farm representative who issued the policy to plaintiff, had a clear memory of the discussion during which the various coverage options were reviewed with plaintiff. However, the Court found that, more likely than not, State Farm made a meaningful offer based upon the language contained in State Farm's Form A and the State Farm representative's testimony it was his standard practice to review with automobile insurance customers all available coverages, including UM/UIM coverage. For this reason, the Court did not reform the UM/UIM coverage contained in plaintiff's insurance policy.