Carrier's UIM Rejection Forms and Renewal Forms Upheld as Valid

In the case of Keeler v. Esurance Insurance Services, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00271 (W.D. Pa. July 12, 2021 Kelly, M.J.), Federal Western District Court Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the carrier and denied the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiffs in a UIM bad faith litigation.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident and recovered against the third party tortfeasor and then pursued a UIM claim against Esurance.

The carrier denied the UIM claim under an argument that the Plaintiff did not purchase UIM benefits when he first obtained the policy and did not add UIM coverage with any subsequent renewal.

The Plaintiffs asserted that the carrier’s UIM rejection form did not comply with the MVFRL because the statutorily required language was not printed in a prominent font or in a prominent location in the carrier’s policy. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the rejection form was void and that UIM benefits must therefore be provided in an amount equal to the bodily injury liability coverage purchased.

Separately, the Plaintiffs also asserted that the carrier’s policy renewal forms omitted a required reminder notice indicating to the insured that the policy did not provide UIM benefits. The Plaintiffs again asserted that this alleged error on the part of the carrier resulted in the carrier being required to provide UIM coverage.

In response, the carrier asserted that its UIM rejection form complied with Pennsylvania law and that, when the Plaintiff signed that form, he offered up a valid written rejection of the offer of UIM coverage.

With regard to the policy renewals, although the carrier conceded that its form lacked the language required by MVFRL to inform policyholders that UIM coverage is not provided under the policy, the carrier held that the Plaintiffs could not be provided with UIM coverage as a result because the Pennsylvania Legislature had not provided for any remedy in any statute for this scenario.

The carrier sought a judgment in its favor as to the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim under the argument that the carrier had acted reasonably and in good faith given that the Plaintiff had affirmatively rejected UIM benefits.

Based upon the above rulings, the court granted the carrier summary judgment after finding that the carrier had an objectively reasonable basis to deny coverage based upon the Plaintiff’s valid rejection of UIM benefits.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh office of the law firm of Summers McDonald, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Section 1983 Civil Rights Claim Allowed to Proceed

In the case of Reed v. City of Philadelphia, No. 20-3640 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2021 DuBois, J.), the court denied a city and doctor’s Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s §1983 Civil Rights Claims filed over a decedent’s suicide in jail.

The court found that the Plaintiff, who was the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, had adequately pled a monell’s claim based upon allegations of inadequate training.

The court additionally found that the Plaintiff had adequately pled that the doctor’s deliberate indifference to the decedent’s serious medical needs allowed the case to proceed.

The court also denied the doctor’s Motion to Dismiss the punitive damages claim presented.

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 6, 2021).

PLEASE SAVE THE DATE FOR A TORT TALK CLE

BACK TO SCHOOL WITH TORT TALK:

A Civil Litigation Update

by

DANIEL E. CUMMINS

CUMMINS LAW

LUZERNE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION HYBRID PRESENTATION 

SET FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 AT NOON

LACKAWANNA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ZOOM PRESENTATION

SET FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 AT NOON

NON-MEMBERS WELCOME

DETAILS TO FOLLOW.......

PROGRAM SPONSOR:

DIGITAL PRESENTATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY:

Source of image: Photo by Elements5 Digital on Unsplash.com

Summary Judgment Secured on Negligent Entrustment Claim

In the case of Jones v. Ritchie, No. 4983-Civil-2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. June 28, 2021 Williamson, J.), the court granted a defendant-owner’s motion for summary judgment on a negligent entrustment claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident matter.

In this case, the plaintiff had sued a number of parties, including the person who had rented a rental car and who had then allowed the defendant driver to operate the vehicle during which trip that driver rear-ended another vehicle.  At the time, the person who had rented the car and the driver who as in the accident were in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.

According to the Opinion, before the subject accident, the defendant driver had a prior conviction for a DUI, of which the party who had rented the vehicle was aware. 

The record before the Court also revealed that the renter of the car was also aware that, around the time of the accident, the defendant driver was taking methadone to address addiction issues. In fact, the renter of the car had allowed the defendant driver to utilize the vehicle on the day of the accident because driver was going to her methadone clinic for treatment.

In addition to suing the defendant driver and the rental car company, the plaintiff filed a negligent entrustment claim against the party who had rented the vehicle and then let the defendant driver drive the vehicle. 

The party who had rented the car filed a motion for summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim.

After reviewing the current status of the law of negligent entrustment, the court ruled in favor of the person who had rented the car and asserted that there was no evidence that the defendant driver had just taken methadone or was on any other drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident. Nor was there any evidence that the cause of the accident was due to any methadone medication used by the driver. 

Additionally, the court stated that there was no evidence stated or presented by the plaintiff that would show that the defendant driver was a bad driver, or that on the date of the accident the defendant driver was in a condition that would make her unable to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, or that such was known to the defendant lessor.

In the end, the court stated that there was no evidence to show that the defendant who had rented the car would have had any reason to know or have any actual knowledge of the fact that allowing the defendant driver to operate the vehicle would give rise to an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Rather, based upon the facts of the case, under which the plaintiffs were caused to come to an abrupt stop on the roadway due to traffic ahead, after which the defendant driver could not stop in time and contacted the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle, it appeared to the court that this accident occurred due to simple human error.

As such, the court granted the defendant who had rented the car summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claims asserted against him.

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

Note:  I was the defense counsel for the defendant who rented the car and who allowed the defendant driver to drive the vehicle.  Anyone who may wish to review my Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Third Circuit Applies Gallagher v. GEICO Household Exclusion Decision as a Matter of Course

In the case of National General Insurance Company v. Sheldon, No. 20-3222 (3rd Cir. July 14, 2021 [Not Precedential], the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s decision that the household exclusion contained in the carrier’s policy was invalid under Pennsylvania law as set forth in the case of Gallagher v. Geico, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019).

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was injured while operating his motorcycle which was insured with Dairyland Insurance.

The Plaintiff settled the third party claim and the UIM claim on the motorcycle.

The Plaintiff then sought UIM benefits on his other household policy with National General Insurance Company, which covered another vehicle in the household. The carrier denied that claim under the household exclusion.

According to the Opinion, National General attempted to argue that the case of Gallagher v. Geico was limited to cases involving the same insurance company and where the carrier covering the other vehicle in the household was unaware of the insured’s ownership of a motorcycle.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision that the household exclusion was invalid under the case of Gallagher v. Geico. The Third Circuit noted in its Opinion that the result was dictated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Gallagher v. Geico.

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


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

Certain Nursing Home Care-Related Claims Allowed to be Pursued Under Section 1983

In the case of Alexander v. Fair Acres Geriatric Center, No. 20-2550 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2021 Pratter, J.), the court denied a nursing home Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed against nursing home care-related claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s nursing home care-related claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 were viable under binding precedent that held that the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments conferred individual rights that are enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The court additionally found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently alleged “deliberate indifference” to support the claims presented by the Plaintiff.

As such, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

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 (June 22, 2021).

Source of image:  Photo by Markus Spiske from Pexels.com.

PLEASE SAVE THE DATE: CIVIL LITIGATION UPDATE CLE FROM TORT TALK

BACK TO SCHOOL WITH TORT TALK:

A Civil Litigation Update

by

DANIEL E. CUMMINS

CUMMINS LAW

LUZERNE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION HYBRID PRESENTATION 

SET FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 AT NOON

LACKAWANNA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ZOOM PRESENTATION

SET FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 AT NOON

NON-MEMBERS WELCOME

DETAILS TO FOLLOW.......

PROGRAM SPONSOR:

DIGITAL PRESENTATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY:

Source of image: Photo by Elements5 Digital on Unsplash.com