A Delaware court dismissed a motorist's negligence claim against the City of Wilmington after finding she missed a notice deadline linked to a police pursuit. 

The Superior Court of Delaware granted summary judgment to the city on September 17. The motorist had sued the city and its police department, alleging an unidentified driver fleeing a Wilmington police chase ran a red light and hit her vehicle at the intersection of North Market Street and East 11th Street on November 30, 2024. The driver fled the scene. 

The motorist originally filed suit against her own insurer, USAA General Indemnity Company, for breach of an insurance policy - about three weeks before the one-year anniversary of the crash. She did not add the city and its police department until March 13, 2026, more than three months after the anniversary. 

That gap decided the case. Under 10 Del. C. § 8124, anyone seeking negligence damages from the City of Wilmington must notify the mayor in writing within one year of the injury, specifying the time, place, cause and nature of the harm. The motorist conceded she never sent that letter. 

Her fallback was an "actual notice" argument. She pointed to a police collision report prepared by the city's own officers, arguing it described the crash in enough detail to satisfy the statute. She also alleged the report "conceals the fact that the accident occurred during a vehicle pursuit initiated and continued by the Defendants." 

The court applied the framework where the Delaware Supreme Court held that actual notice can substitute for formal written notice when the government entity knew about the incident, fully investigated, and was not prejudiced. In Hines, the county's investigation had reached the highest levels of government within three months, and the county had even flagged its insurer about potential coverage. 

Nothing like that happened here. The collision report documented a red-light runner striking the motorist's car and fleeing - nothing about a pursuit or any city involvement. The court found the motorist "presents no evidence that the City knew of [her] collision and its - the City's - alleged role in the event." On concealment, the court said she "merely posits concealment" without factual backing, and refused to engage in "factually unsupported speculation or conjecture." 

The city's motion was originally filed under Rule 12(b)(6), but because both sides submitted materials outside the pleadings, the court converted it to summary judgment under Rule 56. The police department was separately dismissed as an improper party, which the motorist did not contest. 

The breach-of-policy claim against USAA remains active. USAA took no position on the city's motion. 

For claims professionals handling UM/UIM files where a municipality might share fault, the case is a pointed reminder: a police report sitting in a city's records is not the same thing as the city knowing it faces a claim.