Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Below v. William J. Mohr, Below — Steele, J., Dissenting

Summary

This dissent would have reversed the judgment requiring Progressive to pay additional personal injury protection benefits. It reasons that the statute expressly mandates coverage for insured pedestrians struck by non-Delaware-insured vehicles, but does not mandate such coverage when the striking vehicle is Delaware-insured, and that the policy tracked that statutory limitation. The dissent further concludes that policy concerns about full compensation cannot override unambiguous statutory text or justify expanding mandated coverage. No separate opinion was provided.