In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County case
of Rutt v. Donegal, No. CI-19-02544 (C.P. Lanc. Co. Sept. 16, 2019
Brown, J.), the court addressed the application of the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court’s decision in Gallagher v. GEICO, which addressed the validity of
the Household Exclusion in automobile insurance policies.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was involved
in a motor vehicle accident while riding on a motorcycle that was covered by a
carrier other than Donegal.
The Plaintiff recovered damages from the liability policy
possessed by the tortfeasor as well as under the policy that covered his own
motorcycle. The Plaintiff then turned to
Donegal for additional UIM coverage under a Donegal policy that covered another
vehicle in the Plaintiff’s household.
Donegal denied the claim under its Household Exclusion
contained in its policy.
The Plaintiff responded by filing suit. Donegal filed Preliminary Objections in the
nature of a demurrer, asserting that the Gallagher decision could not be
applied retroactively to apply to this case.
The court in Rutt ruled that the Gallagher decision
applied retroactively and applied a rationale similar to that voiced by the
Eastern District Court in its decision in Butta v. GEICO. In so ruling, the Rutt court also read
the Gallagher decision in an expansive fashion, rejecting the effort by
Donegal to limit Gallagher to its facts involving separate policies that
were issued by the same carrier.
Anyone wising to review this decision may click this LINK.
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
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.