Pennsylvania Superior Court Provides Ruling on Stacked UIM Coverage Issues

In the case of Baclit v. Sloan, No. 793 WDA 2023 (Pa Super. Aug. 16, 2024 Lazarus, P.J., Panella, P.J.E., and Beck, J.) (Op. by Beck, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed an issue regarding UIM stacking and coverage in a case it labeled as a one of first impression.

The Plaintiff sustained injuries while aiding another driver who had been involved in a single car accident. The driver who had been involved in an accident had crashed into a retaining wall of a bridge.

The Plaintiff, who had been driving a vehicle owned by his mother, had stopped and gotten out of his vehicle to provide assistance.  While the Good Samaritan Plaintiff was assisting the injured driver of the other vehicle, the Plaintiff fell from the bridge retaining wall and suffered injuries that resulted in his death.

The liability carrier for the driver who had crashed into the bridge tendered its $100,000.00 limits to the Plaintiff’s estate.

The Plaintiff’s estate also recovered the UIM benefits available under the vehicle he was operating which was owned by his mother.

At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff’s decedent was also insured by Progressive relative to his separate motorcycle, which policy included $15,000.00 in UIM coverage. Progressive paid those limits in accordance with the terms of that policy.

At the time of his death, the Plaintiff’s decedent was also the owner of a trucking business. Under that trucking business, there was a commercial automobile insurance policy under which the company was the named insured and the Plaintiff's decedent was designated as a driver.

There was no waiver of stacking signed by the deceased under that policy. The decedent had paid the premiums for stacking.

Under the facts of this case, the insurance company  that covered the decedent's business had charged a premium for stacking when there was just one (1) vehicle on the policy.  That carrier then denied that stacking applied.  The Plaintiff asserted that this position by the carrier should have been viewed as an improper de facto waiver of stacking.

Both the trial court and the Superior Court cited to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of Gallagher v. Geico and emphasized that the Plaintiff's decedent paid increased premiums to obtain stacked UIM benefits under the policy and, as such, reasonably expected to receive those benefits.

Here the Superior Court reasoned that, unless the Plaintiff's decedent was a named insured under the policy, that carrier’s limited definition who can constitute an “insured’ for purposes of collecting stacked UIM benefits under this single vehicle business automobile insurance policy would violate the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. The court found that this was so given that the carrier, based on its argument, would be asserting a waiver of stacking despite the premium charged and paid, without having secured any signed waiver of such stacking coverage of the injured party.

Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the decedent was an insured under the policy and was entitled to stacked UIM coverage.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Walt McClatchy of McClatchy Law in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.