Superior Court Reviews Duty of Uninsured Motorist Plaintiff To Report the Accident To the Police

In its recent non-precedential decision in the case of Pummer v. Engelbrecht, No. 252 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Dec. 30, 2024 Bowes, J., Nichols, J., and Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Nichols, J.) (Bowes, J. concurring), the court addressed whether an uninsured motorist carrier must show prejudice before its denial of a UM claim due to the failure of the injured party to report the accident to the police.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed the rules surrounding the notice requirements following an uninsured motorist accident. 

The court noted that an uninsured motorist vehicle is defined under the Vehicle Code as (1) a motor vehicle for which there is no liability coverage, (2) a motor vehicle for which liability coverage has been denied by the insurance company, or (3) an unidentified motor vehicle (a hit and run motor vehicle) that causes an accident resulting in an injury, provided that the accident is reported to the police or proper governmental authority and the claimant notifies his or her insurance company within thirty (30) days, or as soon as practicable thereafter.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court cited to other cases that confirm that the notice requirement is to prevent fraud in this area of automobile insurance claims.

The Pummer court reviewed the jurisprudence in Pennsylvania as to whether or not a carrier must show prejudice in order to support a denial of uninsured motorist coverage claim based upon the fact that the claimant did not report the accident to the police.

The Superior Court noted that the most recent precedent on this case from the Supreme Court held that whether prejudice is required must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, the court noted that a carrier can show prejudice where an insured’s delay in reporting the accident results in an inability on the part of the carrier to thoroughly investigate the claims presented.

The Pummer court noted that there can be a distinction in hit and run cases between those cases where the driver causing the accident is never identified and where the hit and run driver is identified. 

In Pummer, where the hit and run driver turned out to be a driver that was identified, the court concluded that the absence of police report being generated for the accident was not fatal to the Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim.

One the factors relied upon by the court in this case was the fact that the injured party was a passenger in an Uber vehicle and, as such, did not have any duty to obtain the identity of the tortfeasor driver. Moreover, the court in this case emphasized that the injured party did make numerous efforts to attempt to gather information on the identity of the tortfeasor driver through requests made to the Uber driver and that driver’s carrier.

As such, the Superior Court found that the trial court erred when it granted the UM carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to report the subject accident to the police. The appellate court overruled the trial court and denied the motion on the basis that there were issues of fact that precluded summary judgment.

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