IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHANNON MOFFITT-ALI, § § No. 215, 2016 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § § Court Below: v. § § Superior Court of the STATE FARM MUTUAL § State of Delaware AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE § COMPANY, a foreign corporation, § C.A. No. N14C-04-117 JAVONA Y. MOFFITT-ALI, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: November 2, 2016 Decided: November 9, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.

ORDER

This 9th day of November 2016, the Court, having considered this matter on the

briefs of the parties, has concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of and

for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its decision of March 31, 2016.1

1 On appeal, Moffitt-Ali argues that the Superior Court erred in determining the issue of whether underinsured motorist coverage was triggered pursuant to 18 Del. C. §3902(b)(2) without making a factual determination as to whether the two drivers involved in the collision in which she was injured were tortfeasors. The parties stipulated after oral argument on State Farm’s motion for summary judgment that “the only remaining issue will be the legality of the [d]efendant State Farm’s legal argument set forth in prior pleadings.” Stipulated Order, Moffitt- Ali v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. N14C-04-117 (Del. Super. Jan. 13, 2016). Accordingly, Moffitt-Ali’s argument that an issue of fact remained is waived for the purpose of appeal. See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. Because Moffitt-Ali has neither argued nor demonstrated plain error on the part of the Superior Court, we decline to consider the argument for the first time on appeal. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

2