Transguard Insurance of America, Inc. v. Bingo Moving, Inc.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Transguard Insurance of America, Inc. )
and American Van Lines, Inc., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) C.A. No. S23C-12-011 MHC
v. )
)
Bingo Moving, Inc., Victor Custiuc, )
Hartford Fire Insurance Company and )
Maxum Indemnity Company )
)
Defendants. )
)

ORDER

Submitted: September 16, 2024
Decided: December 4, 2024

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss – GRANTED.

David G. Culley, Esquire, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, 501 Carr Road, Suite 300,
Wilmington, DE 19809, Attorney for Defendants’ Bingo Moving, Inc. and Victor
Custiuc.

Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire, Reger, Rizzo & Darnall, LLP, Brandywine Plaza East,
1523 Concord Pike, Suite 200, Wilmington, DE 19803, Attorney for the Plaintiffs.

Thaddeus J. Weaver, Esquire, Dilworth Paxson, LLP, 800 N. King Street, Suite
202, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for Defendants’ Hartford Fire Ins., Co.
And Maxum Indemnity Co.

CONNER, J.
This 4th day of December, 2024, upon consideration of the Defendants’, Bingo

Moving, Inc. and Victor Custiuc, Motion to Dismiss and briefs submitted by the

parties, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The parties entered into a contract intending that all legal claims would

be resolved through mandatory arbitration. The Court must take notice that the title

of Section 13 of the contract reads “Mandatory Arbitration.”

(2) Plaintiffs contend the word “if” in Section 13 demonstrates that

arbitration is not mandatory. This argument is not persuasive in reading the contract

as a whole. Further, in reading the contract as a whole, Plaintiffs’ other arguments

are equally unavailing.

(3) If the Court found Section 13 was ambiguous, the result would be the

same. The accepted contra proferentem principle dictates that “ambiguities in a

contract should be construed against the drafter.” Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v.

Delaware Racing Association, 840 A. 2d 624, 630 (Del. 2003). It is undisputed that

American Van Lines drafted the subcontract. Additionally, “the public policy of this

State favors the resolution of disputes through arbitration.” Graham v. State Farm

Mutual Insurance Company, 565 A. 2d 908, 911 (Del. 1989).

2
(4) Since the Court finds the parties contracted to settle all legal claims by

arbitration, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court need

not address the remainder of the Defendants’ arguments. The Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mark H. Conner
Mark H. Conner, Judge

Via File & Serve
oc: Prothonotary

3