Friday, January 10, 2020

Unsettled Issues of State Law Pertaining to UIM Claim Leads Federal Court to Remand Case Back to State Court

In the case of Sherer v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., No. 19-2530 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2019) (Mem. Op. by DuBois, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand his UIM breach of contract action back to the state court.

This matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff secured the liability limits from the other driver and then sought UIM benefits under his employer’s policy

The UIM carrier denied coverage because the employer had allegedly properly waived UIM coverage.

The Plaintiff sued in state court asserting that the rejection of UIM protection by the employer failed to comply with Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), that the denial of UIM benefits violated the MVFRL, and that the failure of the carrier or the employer to notify the Plaintiff of the waiver of coverage violated the MVFRL.

The Defendant removed the action to federal court and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case to state court.

The court found that the claims raised in this matter involved unsettled issues of state law that were peculiarly within the purview of the Pennsylvania state court system. As such, the court granted the Motion to Remand.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.  The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 26, 2019).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.