Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Court Rules That Rejection of UIM Coverage Forms Not Required Where Vehicle Not Insured for Liability

In the case of Baldridge v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:17-cv-00273-AJS (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2017 Schwab, J.), the Federal Western District Court of Pennsylvania addressed the issue of whether underinsured motorist coverage was available to the Plaintiff for stacking purposes on one of his four personal vehicles which the Defendant insured.  

According to the Opinion, there was no dispute that the Defendant insurance company insured the four (4) personal vehicles of the Plaintiff.  There was also no dispute that the Plaintiff had UIM coverage in the amount of $300,000.00 on three of the four personal vehicles.  

The question before the court was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to UIM coverage on the fourth vehicle, which was noted to be a Mustang.  The more specific question for the court to resolve was whether the Plaintiff had UIM coverage in the amount of $900,000.00 ($300,000.00 multiplied by three vehicles) or $1.2 million dollars ($300,000.00 multiplied by four vehicles).  

The carrier asserted that, because it never provided liability coverage on the Plaintiff’s Mustang, the carrier was never required to also offer the Plaintiff’s UIM coverage on that vehicle.  

The Defendant carrier produced a portion of the insurance policy it issued to the Plaintiff which confirmed that the Mustang was “not covered” for liability.   Rather, that vehicle was covered only for damage to the Mustang for accidents other than collision loss.  

After a review of the waiver/rejection of UIM coverage statutes found at 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1731 and §1734, the court agreed with the carrier’s position and found that, because the Mustang was not insured for liability purposes, the Defendant carrier was never required to offer UIM benefits on that vehicle.   As such, no signed waiver of UIM benefits with respect to the Mustang was required by law.  

Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of the Defendant carrier on the motion presented.  

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania law firm of Summers McDonnell, Hudak & Guthrie, P.C., for bringing this case to my attention.  

No comments:

Post a Comment