Court Upholds Employer's Rejection Of UIM Coverage in a Case Where Employee Sought UIM Benefits

In the Grenell v. Zurich American Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-36 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2022 Cercone, J.), the court addressed challenges to UM and UIM rejection forms.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in August of 2019.

The Plaintiff settled with the tortfeasor for the liability limits and then secured UIM benefits from his own insurance company, which was the Agency Insurance Company.

The Plaintiff thereafter sought additional UIM benefits on the vehicle that he was operating at the time of the accident and which vehicle was provided to him by his employer. That vehicle was covered under an automobile insurance policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company.

The record before the court confirmed that the Plaintiff was permitted to use the vehicle for business and personal use. The record also confirmed that the Plaintiff paid taxes on the benefits he received from the personal use of the vehicle.

According to the Opinion, the employer had rejected UIM coverage on the vehicle.

The Plaintiff challenged the validity of this UIM rejection under an argument that he was never notified of the rejection.

Cross Motions for Summary Judgment were filed.

The court held that the UIM rejection form was valid and enforceable. The court noted that the waiver was executed by someone with authority at the employer’s office to reject the coverage on behalf of the employer. As such, the court rejected the Plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition.

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


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

Unsettled Issues of State Law Pertaining to UIM Claim Leads Federal Court to Remand Case Back to State Court

In the case of Sherer v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., No. 19-2530 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2019) (Mem. Op. by DuBois, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand his UIM breach of contract action back to the state court.

This matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff secured the liability limits from the other driver and then sought UIM benefits under his employer’s policy

The UIM carrier denied coverage because the employer had allegedly properly waived UIM coverage.

The Plaintiff sued in state court asserting that the rejection of UIM protection by the employer failed to comply with Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), that the denial of UIM benefits violated the MVFRL, and that the failure of the carrier or the employer to notify the Plaintiff of the waiver of coverage violated the MVFRL.

The Defendant removed the action to federal court and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case to state court.

The court found that the claims raised in this matter involved unsettled issues of state law that were peculiarly within the purview of the Pennsylvania state court system. As such, the court granted the Motion to Remand.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 26, 2019).