Class Two Insured Not Permitted to Stack UIM Limits Under Employer's Fleet Policy

Tort Talkers may recall the prior blog post on the case of Selective Insurance of South Carolina v. Koons-Gill, No. 13-CV-6415 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 14, 2016 Nealon, J.), in which Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas issued a decision in this declaratory judgment action on the issue of whether an employee of ambulance service company, who was injured in a work-related accident while occupying her employer’s ambulance, may stack the underinsured motorists coverage limits for the six (6) ambulance vehicles that were insured under the employer’s commercial business automobile insurance policy.

After reviewing the matter, Judge Nealon ruled that, based upon the clear and unambiguous language of the employer’s policy as applied to the stipulated set of facts presented by the parties, the employee was found to be a “class two” insured who was not entitled to stack the UIM coverage limits for the six (6) ambulances that were insured under the employer’s commercial policy.  

Accordingly, the court entered a verdict in this declaratory judgment action finding that the UIM coverage limit governing the employer’s claim to be single UIM coverage limit applicable to the ambulance that the employee was occupying at the time of her injury.  

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

By way of update, it is noted that this decision was recently affirmed on appeal in a non-precedential Opinion by the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued on February 13, 2018 under Superior Court Docket No. 163 MDA 210.  The Superior Court's non-precedential Opinion may be viewed HERE.

Class Two Insured Not Permitted to Stack UIM Limits Under Employer's Fleet Policy

In his recent decision in the case of Selective Insurance of South Carolina v. Koons-Gill, No. 13-CV-6415 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 14, 2016 Nealon, J.) Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas issued a decision in this declaratory judgment action on the issue of whether an employee of ambulance service company, who was injured in a work-related accident while occupying her employer’s ambulance, may stack the underinsured motorists coverage limits for the six (6) ambulance vehicles that were insured under the employer’s commercial business automobile insurance policy.

After reviewing the matter, Judge Nealon ruled that, based upon the clear and unambiguous language of the employer’s policy as applied to the stipulated set of facts presented by the parties, the employee was found to be a “class two” insured who was not entitled to stack the UIM coverage limits for the six (6) ambulances that were insured under the employer’s commercial policy.  

Accordingly, the court entered a verdict in this declaratory judgment action finding that the UIM coverage limit governing the employer’s claim to be single UIM coverage limit applicable to the ambulance that the employee was occupying at the time of her injury.  

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.   

UPDATE:  This decision was affirmed on appeal in a non-precedential Opinion by the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued on February 13, 2018 under Superior Court Docket No. 163 MDA 210.  The Superior Court's non-precedential Opinion may be viewed HERE.

Rejection of UIM Coverage Form Found Invalid by Philadelphia County Court

In a recent decision out of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Bielec v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 2016 WL 7157620 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 5, 2016 Djerassi, J.), the court addressed the issue of whether a rejection of under-insured motorist ("UIM") coverage was valid where statutory language requirements were not followed under 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1731 et seq. of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL").

The case also involves policy considerations concerning a plaintiff, who was an employee of defendant Verizon Communications, Inc., and that company's attempt to decline UIM benefits for its fleet of vehicles without notifying plaintiff.  The court noted that, without this notice, the plaintiff did not arrange for UIM coverage for instances when he was driving Verizon vehicles during work hours.

According to the Opinion, the plaintiff had an accident on the job while driving a Verizon truck and was struck by an automobile at a traffic light.  The plaintiff brought suit after he was precluded from asserting a UIM claim on Verizon's policy with defendant National Union Fire
Insurance Company.

The court found under a textual and policy analysis that Verizon's rejection of UIM coverage was void.  As such, summary judgment was granted in favor of the  plaintiff.
 

More specifically, the court found that Verizon's UIM rejection form deemed invalid because it did not comply with MVFRL in that several paragraph's in the form separated the UIM rejection statement from the authorized signature at bottom of form with one of the intervening
paragraphs purporting to reject UIM stacking as well.

The court also reasoned that even if the rejection form was valid, it would be rejected on public policy grounds because Verizon never told its employee that UIM coverage had been
rejected.  The court believed that an employer who fails to notify its employee that UIM coverage has been rejected is acting against public policy.  The court otherwise noted that Verizon's lack of notice undermined the MVFRL's policy to protect people from risk of injury caused by a negligent driver who lacks adequate insurance.

As stated, the court ultimately found that Verizon's waiver of UIM without notice to its employee driver was void.  Accordingly, National Union Fire Insurance Company, which was Verizon's commercial auto insurer, was ordered to provide UIM benefits up to the statutory limit that National was obligated to offer.

Anyone wishing to review 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.