In the non-precedential decision in the case of Pusey v. Allstate Insurance Company, No.
888 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. May 20, 2016 Ford Elliot, P.J.E. Stabile, and
Strassburger, JJ.) (Mem. Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court
affirmed a trial court’s handling of the molding of a verdict after an
underinsured motorist trial.
In this case, the trial court addressed the proper procedure
for applying credits and comparative negligence in an underinsured motorist
benefits trial.
This matter arose out an incident during which a minor
Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle while the minor was riding a bicycle.
Prior to trial, the tortfeasor’s carrier tendered its
$25,000.00 policy limits to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff then brought suit against the UIM carrier for underinsured
motorist coverage.
At trial, the jury awarded the Plaintiff $58.600.00. However, the jury also attributed 41% of the
negligence to the minor Plaintiff.
When a post-trial dispute arose on how to apply the credit
for the tortfeasor’s limits as well as the comparative negligent percentage,
the trial court ruled that the comparative negligence percentage should be applied
first, followed by the application of the credit owed from the tortfeasor’s
liability limits.
In its non-precedential Opinion, the Superior Court affirmed and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its decision. In so ruling, the Superior Court rejected
the Plaintiff’s argument that the Allstate policy language pertaining to the
phrase “legally entitled to recover” was ambiguous as to how the net verdict
was to be determined.
The court stated that, “[t]o the contrary, it is clear that
the amount [the Plaintiff] is “legally entitled to recover” is only reasonably
interpreted as the amount she is entitled to collect according to the jury’s
verdict.” See Op. p. 6.
As noted, the
Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s application of the comparative
negligence percentage of the Plaintiff first followed by the application of the
credit owed from the tortfeasor’s liability limits. Accordingly, the judgement entered by the
trial court below was affirmed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential
decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Pusey v. Allstate, may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.