The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that there was no unjust enrichment or fraud arising from the carrier charging a premium for stacked coverage benefits to a single-vehicle policy for an insured who lived in a household with no other auto policy as there were circumstances that could arise where the single-vehicle policy holder could obtain stacked coverage.
The court cited to other previous Pennsylvania decisions in which it had been held that a single-vehicle policy holder could benefit from stacking where the individual is injured in a vehicle other than his or her own insured vehicle and is an insured under the non-owned vehicle’s policy, which also has uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, such as an employer’s vehicle. Other additional scenarios were noted in the Opinion under which a single-vehicle policy holder may secure a benefit from stacking of UM/UIM coverages.
Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the carrier.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 14, 2025).
Source of image: Photo by Vlad Deep on www.unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.