A Delaware court sided with Liberty Mutual, rejecting a policyholder’s bid to stack coverage and clarifying settlement rules for underinsured motorist claims.
In its August 11, 2025, opinion and order, the Superior Court of Delaware denied a motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement, finding that no binding deal had ever been reached between the parties.
The dispute began when Glenn Carpenter sought to recover underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits after an accident in October 2021. Carpenter held two Liberty Mutual policies – one for the car he was driving during the accident, and another for a motorcycle that was not involved. He tried to combine the coverage from both policies, seeking a $200,000 payout. Liberty Mutual denied the claim under the motorcycle policy, citing Delaware law that restricts stacking of UIM coverage.
Carpenter argued that Liberty Mutual had agreed to pay him $100,000 under the auto policy, but the insurer’s offer was conditional: Carpenter would have to sign a release waiving all claims under both policies. Wanting to retain his right to pursue the motorcycle policy, Carpenter refused. The court found that without agreement on this key point, there was no enforceable settlement.
Carpenter also brought extra-contractual claims, including allegations under Delaware’s Unfair Claims Insurance Practices Act and claims of bad faith. He asserted that Liberty Mutual acknowledged the value of his claim exceeded the auto policy’s coverage but still refused to pay unless he signed a comprehensive release. The court was not persuaded, noting that Delaware’s Unfair Practices in Insurance Statute does not provide a private right of action for individual claimants and requires evidence of a pattern of unfair conduct, which Carpenter did not demonstrate.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in December 2024, focused on the liability of the tortfeasor and the value of Carpenter’s injuries. The jury determined that Carpenter’s injuries were worth $5,000. Since Carpenter had already received $25,000 from the tortfeasor’s insurer, the court entered judgment on the UIM claim in favor of Liberty Mutual, finding that no further payment was due.
After the trial, Carpenter’s motion for a new trial was denied. Liberty Mutual then moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the court ruled that most of Carpenter’s claims were resolved by the jury’s verdict, except for one extra-contractual claim, which was allowed to proceed.
Carpenter made a final attempt to enforce the alleged settlement agreement, arguing that Liberty Mutual’s requirement for a general release was unenforceable and contrary to public policy. In its August 11, 2025, decision, the court rejected this argument, finding that the release was a material condition of the settlement offer and that no contract was formed without mutual agreement. The court also reiterated that the statutory provisions Carpenter cited did not provide him relief.
The outcome leaves most of Carpenter’s claims resolved in Liberty Mutual’s favor, with only one extra-contractual claim left to be decided. For insurance professionals, the case is a reminder of the importance of clear settlement terms, the enforceability of policy clauses, and the limits of statutory remedies for claimants. It also highlights how insurers can structure settlement offers and the necessity for both sides to agree on all material terms before a settlement is binding. The decision reinforces insurer leverage in UIM disputes and the importance of mutual agreement before any settlement becomes binding.
