In the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Russo, No. 1138 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. July 22, 2025 Murray, J., King, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the court affirmed the trial court’s decision in a declaratory judgment action brought by the UIM carrier denying UIM coverage through the application of the regular use exclusion present in the Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy.
This matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred during the course and scope of the Plaintiff’s employment. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was operating a vehicle that had been supplied by his employer.
After recovering UIM benefits under his employer’s policy, the Plaintiff sought UIM benefits under his personal automobile insurance policy.
The personal automobile insurance carrier filed this declaratory judgment action and asserted that the regular use exclusion supported a denial of the requested coverage.
The trial court had otherwise ruled that there was no “stacked” underinsured motorist coverage available on the Plaintiff’s personal automobile insurance policy atop of the UIM benefits recovered under the Plaintiff’s employer’s vehicle policy.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the Plaintiff was not an “insured” under the employer’s policy for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. As such, the Plaintiff could not “stack” benefits under his personal automobile insurance policy in any event.
The Superior Court emphasized that merely receiving UIM coverage for injuries sustained as an occupant in a first priority vehicle does not make one “an insured” under that vehicle’s policy such that the person would then be entitled to stack one’s personal automobile policy UIM coverage.
Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that, because the Plaintiff was not entitled to stack his personal policy UIM coverage with the UIM coverage he received from his employer’s policy, the Plaintiff could not establish any error in the trial court’s declaration that there existed no UIM coverage available to the Plaintiff under his personal automobile insurance policy.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 13, 2025).
The trial court had otherwise ruled that there was no “stacked” underinsured motorist coverage available on the Plaintiff’s personal automobile insurance policy atop of the UIM benefits recovered under the Plaintiff’s employer’s vehicle policy.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the Plaintiff was not an “insured” under the employer’s policy for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. As such, the Plaintiff could not “stack” benefits under his personal automobile insurance policy in any event.
The Superior Court emphasized that merely receiving UIM coverage for injuries sustained as an occupant in a first priority vehicle does not make one “an insured” under that vehicle’s policy such that the person would then be entitled to stack one’s personal automobile policy UIM coverage.
Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that, because the Plaintiff was not entitled to stack his personal policy UIM coverage with the UIM coverage he received from his employer’s policy, the Plaintiff could not establish any error in the trial court’s declaration that there existed no UIM coverage available to the Plaintiff under his personal automobile insurance policy.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 13, 2025).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.