UIM Rejection Form for Commercial Auto Policy Found Valid

In the case of Eberly v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Washington, D.C., No. 5:20-CV-05471 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2021 Leeson, J.), Judge Joseph Leeson of the Eastern District Federal Court granted a Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss in a UIM case.

This matter involved a commercial auto policy.  The Plaintiff challenged the UIM rejection form on the basis that the document did not contain a policy number and because the document did not indicate the authority of the signatory to execute the document on behalf of the commercial insured.     

The court found that the form executed by the Plaintiff rejecting equal UIM coverage under a commercial automobile insurance policy was valid where that form was signed by the corporate insured’s owner, who was the only individual who had ever acted as a signatory for the company. 

The court also found the form to be valid where the relevant policy number was listed in an attached schedule to the coverage forms.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 29, 2021).

Source of image: Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels.com.

Validity of UIM Rejection Form Language in Commercial Auto Policy Upheld (Mem. Op.)

In a memorandum opinion in the case of Rarick v. Federal Services Ins. Co., 2:13-cv-03286-JFL (E.D. Pa. July 10, 2017 Leeson, J.), whch involved an employee who challenged the rejection form signed by his employer on a commercial motor vehicle insurance policy, the District Court held that the employee (as a third party beneficiary) had standing to challenge the validity of the rejection of UM/UIM coverage form.

The court additionally confirmed that rejection forms under Section 1731 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law apply to commercial policies. 

The District Court in Rarick ultimately held that, as there were only minor deviations in the form as compared to the form language in 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1731, the validity of the form was upheld.

Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.