Court Rules That No New UM Sign Down Form Was Required

In the case of Estate of Woloszyn v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 10246 of 2022, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Nov. 21, 2025 Hodge, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of a UM carrier on a breach of contract and bad faith claim arising out of a dispute over what the appropriate UM limits were under the policy.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motorcycle accident when a vehicle being operated by an uninsured motorist crossed the centerline and struck the Plaintiff’s son’s motorcycle, resulting in a fatal accident.

Following the accident, the Plaintiff’s estate made a claim for UM coverage under various insurance policies. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether the UM coverage should be $100,000.00 or $15,000.00.

The court noted that, in 2015, the Plaintiff’s family had obtained a vehicle insurance policy No. 858 from the carrier prior to the accident. Relative to that policy, the Plaintiff’s family executed a signed down form opting to decrease the uninsured motorist coverage to $15,000.00 per person even though the bodily injury liability limit was $100,000.00 per person.

In October of 2020, the 858 policy was replaced by a No. 916 policy as part of the Defendant carrier’s One Product initiative.

The Plaintiff’s family received a Notice of Policy Change which indicated that the 858 policy was expiring and that the policy would be renewed under the terms of the 916 policy.

The Plaintiff accepted the renewal by paying the premium for the 916 policy.


The 916 policy provided bodily injury limits of $100,000.00 per person and UM coverage limits of $15,000.00 per person, which was the same coverage as was selected by the Plaintiff’s family under the 858 policy. The court noted, however, that the Defendant carrier did not obtain an executed sign down form for the lesser amount of UM coverage from the Plaintiff’s family prior to the issuance of the 916 policy.

After the Plaintiff’s family sued the Defendant UM carrier for claims for declaratory judgment, statutory bad faith, breach of contract, negligence, and a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protections Law, the case proceeded to cross motions for summary judgment.

In ressolving the issues presented, the court ruled that there was no doubt that the policy number had changed from the 858 policy to the 916 policy. The court also noted that the Defendant carrier had provided notice to the Plaintiff that the policy number had changed. It was additionally noted that the Plaintiff did not object to that change and continued to pay the premiums for the new 916 policy.

The court otherwise concluded that the policy language and the sign down form that was previously executed by the Plaintiff relative to the 858 policy were not ambiguous.

After reviewing the facts and circumstances before it, the court concluded that the Defendant carrier’s refusal to pay the higher amount that the Plaintiff desired for the UM claim was not frivolous or unfounded given that the Plaintiff’s family had elected to continue with the reduced UM coverage under the new policy and had evidenced the same by paying the premium.

Based upon this ruling, the court also found that there was no basis for the bad faith claim presented by the Plaintiff given that the Defendant had performed its obligations under the policy by paying out the UM coverage that was paid for by the Plaintiff.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 5, 2026).

Does The Issuance of a New Policy Number on an Automobile Insurance Policy Constitute the Creation of a New Policy?

In the case of Shea v. Nationwide Ins. Co. and Davis, No. 3:22-CV0-00494-MEM (M.D. Pa. April 6, 2023 Mannion, J.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania adopted the Report and Recommendation of Chief Federal Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick and ordered that this declaratory judgment action be remanded to state court for review by the state court.

The legal issue presented in this matter addressed “the novel question or whether or not the issuance of a new policy number constitutes the establishment of a new policy requiring new sign down forms.”

The court determined that this issue presented a novel and unsettled issue of state law. As such, under the factors set forth in the case of Reifer v. Westport Ins. Corp., 751 F.3d 129 (3d. Cir. 2014), the court decided to remand the case to the state court for a decision.  The case was remanded to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Report and Recommendation of Judge Mehalchick and well as the decision of Judgment Mannion approving the Report and Recommendation may click this LINK.

Plaintiff's counsel in this case was Attorney Neil T. O’Donnell and Attorney Gerard Gaughan of the Kingston, PA law firm of O’Donnell Law Offices.

 

Source of image: Photo by Priscilla Piacquadio on www.pexels.com.

Third Circuit: Unless An Automobile Insurance Carrier Issues a New Policy, No New UM/UIM Sign Down Forms Are Required

In the case of Geist v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 F.4th 861 (3rd Cir. Sept. 29, 2022 Randel, C.J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of when an automobile insurance carrier may be required to secure updated UM/UIM sign down forms.

In this matter, when the insured had purchased the State Farm policy initially, two (2) vehicles were insured under the policy and the necessary forms were executed. Thereafter, the insured added a third vehicle. At that point in time, the insured did not execute a request for UIM coverage limits below the bodily injury coverage limits.

Thereafter, an insured under the policy was involved in a motor vehicle accident. After settling the tort claim against the Defendant driver, that Plaintiff turned to State Farm for UIM coverage. A dispute arose over the amount of UIM limits available.

The Plaintiff asserted that she should be provided with higher limits because State Farm did not secure a sign down form when another vehicle had been added to the policy. When State Farm disagreed, litigation ensued and eventually resulted in this decision.

The Plaintiff asserted that she was owed higher coverage because State Farm had not followed the requirements of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1731 and 1734 relative to the forms at issue.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, after reviewing the existing case law, ruled that no events in the years prior to the subject motor vehicle accident triggered the obligations under §1731 and 1734 because State Farm had never issued a new policy to the insured. As such, the court found that State Farm was not obligated to seek a new written election for lower UIM coverage limits under the policy.

Rather, the court ruled that the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law only required carriers to seek elections of lower UIM coverage limits only when the carriers issue policies. State Farm was found to have satisfied their duties under the law when the secured the forms when the insured had executed the requisite forms when the policy was initially issued.

The court more specifically noted that both §1731 and 1734 expressly state that the requirements contained in those statutes apply, under §1731 when an insurance company is involved in the “delivery or issuance” of a “policy,” and §1734 applied when a carrier “issues a policy.”

The court in Geist went on to note that, once the carrier meets its obligations to secure the UIM sign down forms on a particular policy, the insurance company need not do anymore to fulfill its obligations under §1731 and 1734 during the life of that particular insurance policy.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Olia Danilvoich on www.pexels.com.