In a recent non-precedential decision in the case of
Newhook v. Erie Ins. Exch., No. 1917
EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. April 25, 2018 Panela,
J., Lazarus, J., and Strassburger, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court
affirmed a trial court’s decision which held that the carrier was required to
provide a new rejection of stacking waiver form when cars are added to a policy
where stacking was previously rejected.
The carrier attempted to argue that Sackett II applied and that the
additional cars were continuous coverage. In this memorandum
opinion, the Superior Court instead concluded that the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court’s decision in Sackett I and the
Pennsylvania Superior Court’s en banc decision in Bumbarger controlled.
As such, the insured was allowed stacked UIM
coverage.
In this Newhook
decision, the Superior Court noted that the analysis for determining when a
carrier was required to secure new rejection of stacking forms following the
addition of a new vehicle to a policy involved (1) a review of how the new
vehicle was added to the policy, i.e., via endorsement or a newly acquired auto
clause, and (2) a review of what was the specific language of the relevant
clause(s) in the insurance policy. See Mem. Op. at p. 7.
Anyone wishing to review this non-precedential
decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the
Schmidt Kramer law firm in Harrisburg, PA for bringing this case to my
attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.