Latest Take on Sackett Analysis By Pennsylvania Superior Court

Another heady Sackett-type UIM stacking opinion has been handed down by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the form of Toner v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance, No. 53 WDA 2015, 2016 Pa. Super. 69 (Pa. Super. March 21, 2016 Ott, Stabile, Shogan, J.J.)(Op. by Ott)(Shogan, Dissenting).

This case involved an automobile insurance policy that originally only had one vehicle on it and under which the insured had waived stacking.  The insured later added two vehicles to the policy, one at a time.  The insured was not provided with a waiver of stacking form either time a new vehicle was added.

After the insured's son was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, the carrier paid the UIM limits available for one vehicle.  The Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that the UIM carrier should have provided the insured with new waiver of stacking forms to sign and that, by not doing so the carrier was required to provide stacked coverage for all three vehicles.

The Superior Court majority affirmed the trial court's decision that new waiver forms were not required under the Sackett analysis.

Anyone wishing to tackle the Superior Court's latest take on the Sackett analysis may click this LINK Judge Shogan's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.



UPDATE:  The Toner case refernced above settled just before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was set to address the stacking issues raised therein.  As such, the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision in the matter stands.