Monday, December 15, 2014

Dated UIM Rejection Form Signed by Insured Valid Even Though Insured Was Not the One Who Dated It

Can't Go For That

In a December 10, 2014 Memorandum Opinion out of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case of Lieb v. Allstate Prop. And Cas. Ins. Co., NO. 14-4225 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2014 Rufe, J.), the court upheld the validity of a UIM rejection form even though the insured was not the one who dated the document.

According to the Opinion, this case involved a motor vehicle accident after which the Plaintiff secured a third party settlement and then pursued a UIM claim.

The UIM carrier rejected the claim on the basis of a valid rejection of UIM coverage form having been executed by the insured. 

The Plaintiff argued that the rejection form was void because the form was not dated by the insured, only signed.  According to the Opinion, the date was pre-printed on the form.

The Court held that that the rejection form was valid given that the form met all of the statutory requirements.

After reviewing the MVFRL, and in particular, the language of Section 1731, the Court noted that the statute only required that the form “must be signed by the first named insured and dated to be valid.” 

In other words, the statute does not require that the “form must be signed and dated by the first named insured.”

Accordingly, the court found that no requirement existed for the insured to actually date the form.  As such, since the UIM rejection form was signed by the insured, the Court held that the form was valid.
 
Anyone wishing to review this Memorandum Opinion may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
 
I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

No comments:

Post a Comment