Ambiguous Insurance Policy
Equals More UIM Benefits

A November 2009 legal opinion of Judge Judith Olson of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas granted an underinsured motorist's Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered Progressive Northern Insurance Company to provide underinsured motorist claim coverage to the car crash victim.  The woman was a passenger in a car which was involved in a collision.  She sustained extensive injuries resulting in the payment of the Defendant's insurance policy limit, as well as the UIM limit under her father's auto policy.

The Pennsylvania underinsured motorist then made a claim for UIM benefits under her grandfather's car insurance coverage.  Progressive argued against the UIM claim since the injury victim didn't own the grandfather's car.  She did not live with him at the time of the crash and she did not qualify as an "insured person" under the auto contract.

In ruling in favor of the UIM claimant, the Allegheny County Trial Judge noted that she was specifically listed on the declaration sheet under the heading "drivers and household residents."  Progressive admitted that they increased the insurance premiums when she was added to the policy.  Adding to the confusion was the fact that the terms "named insured" and "driver" were not defined in the insurance contract.  As a result of the ambiguities created by Progressive, all questions raised in the underinsured motorist claim were answered in the UIM victim's favor.  Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Lorini, C.P. Allegheny County G.D. No. 08-021545 (Nov. 23, 2009 J. Olson)

UIM Jurisdiction in UIM
Victim's County

The Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a ruling in November of 2009 which rejected an attempt by a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist to litigate her UIM claim in Philadelphia County.  The victim lived in Delaware County and was injured in a Delaware County motor vehicle accident.  After she received the Defendant's policy limit, First Liberty Insurance Co. denied her PA underinsured motorist claim.  Her UIM attorney filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia County alleging breach of contract and loss of consortium.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas sustained the Defendant's preliminary objections and transferred the case to Delaware County.  The Trial Court followed the forum selection clause contained in the underinsured motorist section of the auto insurance policy which required that UIM litigation take place in the County in which the UIM victim lived at the time of the auto accident.  The PA Superior Court rejected the Plaintiff's arguments that the contract conflicted with Pennsylvania law and/or is against public policy.  O'Hara v. First Liberty Insurance Corp., 984 A.2d 938 (Pa. Super. 2009)

Incomplete UIM Rejection
Form Results in Higher
UIM Coverage

A November 2009 decision of President Judge Motto of the Lawrence County PA Court of Common Pleas permitted a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim victim to make a UIM claim up to $300,000.00.  The car accident victim had signed an application for insurance which specifically listed liability coverage of $300,000.00 and UM/UIM coverage of $35,000.00.

After his client had been involved in a car crash, the Pennsylvania underinsured motorist attorney demanded UIM coverage of $300,000.00.  The insurance company and the UIM claim victim both filed Motions for Summary Judgment requesting that the Lawrence County Judge rule in their favor.  President Judge Motto noted that the UM/UIM increase limits rejection form did not specifically list the lower UM/UIM limit of $35,000.00.

The failure of the insurance company to list the specific UM/UIM limits was held to be a violation of Section 1734 of the PA Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.  Therefore, the judge ruled that the underinsured motorist limits should be amended to equal the liability limits of $300,000.00.  United Financial Casualty Company v. Fornataro, 11791 of 2008 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas) P. J. Motto

Defendant Driver Gets
Benefit of Victim's UIM Recovery

In a stunning decision, a September 2009 ruling of the Pennsylvania Superior Court diminished the rights of injured victims making PA uninsured motorist claims.  A woman was driving in Jefferson County PA when she was hit by a negligent driver.  At the time of the crash, she was insured by State Farm Insurance Company.

The car accident victim sued the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County.  Just prior to trial she settled her separate Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim with State Farm for $75,000.00.  At trial, the jury awarded her $100,000.00.

The defendant's attorney filed a motion to mold the jury verdict to reflect the $75,000.00 UIM payment and reduce his client's responsibility to $25,000.00.  Even though the car crash victim paid for the optional underinsured motorist coverage out of her own pocket, the court agreed and gave the benefit of the UIM payout to the negligent defendant.  Pusl v. Means, 982 A.2d 550 (PA Super 2009)

UIM Claim Denied Due to
Household Exclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 2009 legal Opinion upheld the household exclusion in an Erie Insurance Company car insurance policy resulting in a denial of an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim.  There was a motor vehicle collision in Allegheny County PA.  The injured victim received the negligent driver's insurance policy limit, as well as the underinsured motorist coverage limit for the vehicle he was driving.

His PA underinsured motorist attorney also made a UIM claim against an Erie policy covering 3 other vehicles he owned.  Erie refused to make an underinsured motorist payment because of the language which excluded UIM coverage if he was hurt while occupying a vehicle he owned that was not insured under that Erie policy.  The Allegheny County Court, the PA Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania all ruled in Erie's favor and denied the additional underinsured motorist claim.  Erie Ins. Exchange v. Baker, 972 A.2d 507 (PA 2009)

A 2009 PA Superior Court written opinion permitted a car accident victim to continue her lawsuit against the Hartford Insurance Company for a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist (UIM) claim, as well as a bad-faith claim.  The young woman was hit by a negligent driver and settled that personal injury case for $85,000.00.  Her PA underinsured motorist attorney gave the Hartford a $100,000.00 credit for the tortfeasor's policy limit and demanded payment of her $100,000.00 UIM coverage limit.

When the parties couldn't settle the UIM claim, the Pennsylvania underinsured motorist lawyer filed a suit v. Hartford.  He first alleged breach of contract due to their failure to offer the UIM policy limit.  A separate legal claim of bad faith was alleged over the insurance company's handling of the underinsured motorist claim.  The Hartford's attorneys filed a motion to separate the 2 claims and to put the bad faith claim on hold until after a decision was reached on the value of the underinsured motorist case.

The Allegheny County Trial Judge ruled that discovery and litigation on both claims should move forward.  The PA Superior Court agreed with the lower court that the best use of judicial resources would occur if the same judge presided over both the underinsured motorist jury trial and the non-jury bad faith trial that could potentially follow.  Gunn v. Auto Ins. Co. Hartford Conn., 971 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super 2009)

UIM Victim Able to Use
"Rescue Doctrine"

A 2009 decision by the PA Superior Court permitted a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claimant to have a full hearing before a UIM Arbitration Panel.  A motor vehicle accident was caused by a speeding motorist who was driving too fast for conditions and hydroplaned in a severe rainstorm.  A volunteer fireman sustained severe injuries in a car accident while driving to the scene of the car crash.

The negligent driver's automobile policy coverage was less than the value of the PA personal injury claim.  Therefore, the victim made a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim against his own car insurance company.  The attorneys representing Erie argued that the fireman was responsible for his own car accident and was unable to receive PA UIM benefits.  The Pennsylvania underinsured motorist Arbitration Panel agreed and dismissed the UIM claim.

The Pennsylvania underinsured motorist attorney filed an appeal.  The PA Superior Court ruled that the fireman was actively engaged in a rescue at the time of the crash.  It ordered a new underinsured motorist Arbitration Hearing and granted the injured UIM victim the right to use the legal principle known as the "rescue doctrine."  Bole v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 967 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2009)

Husband's Signature on UIM
Rejection Form Negates Wife's
UIM Claim

A  2009 opinion of the PA Superior Court reversed a trial court's favorable decision for a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim victim.  A husband and wife purchased car insurance from Donegal Insurance Company which included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.  After adding a teenager to their policy, they looked for ways to reduce their premium.  The husband told the insurance agent to eliminate UIM coverage.  He signed the underinsured motorist rejection form for both him and his wife.

The wife was then involved in a car accident in which she suffered significant injuries.  After obtaining the negligent defendant's policy limit, she made an underinsured motorist claim vs. Donegal.  Her Pennsylvania underinsured motorist attorney claimed that she was entitled to UIM benefits because she didn't sign the UIM rejection form.  The Westmoreland County Trial Judge agreed and ordered Donegal to provide underinsured motorist benefits.

Donegal appealed and the PA Superior Court overruled the Trial Court.  Once the insurance company received a PA underinsured motorist coverage rejection form bearing both signatures, the burden of proof shifted to the wife.  She had to prove that not only was her signature a forgery, but that her husband placed it there without her knowledge and consent.  Since she did not present evidence proving that she did not willingly waive underinsured motorist coverage, her UIM claim was denied.  Toth v. Donegal Companies, 964 A.2d 413 (Pa. Super. 2009)

Officer's UIM Claim Denied
Due to Receipt of W. C. Benefits

A 2008 ruling by the PA Commonwealth Court limited the ability of PA car accident victims to pursue certain Pennsylvania underinsured motorist (UIM) claims after a workplace collision.  A police officer was hurt in a PA car crash while on duty.  The negligent Defendant's insurance company paid its policy limit.  His medical bills and 2/3 of his lost income were paid by Worker's Compensation.

His Pennsylvania underinsured motorist lawyer made UIM claims against the police officer's own car insurance company and his employer's automobile insurance carrier.  The Venago County Trial Judge dismissed the PA underinsured motorist claim against the borough since there was a UIM exclusion for those who received Worker's Compensation benefits.

The Appeals Court stated that the insurance contract language did not violate the PA Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act or public policy.  The only Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim that the PA car accident victim could make was against his own car insurance company.  Heller v. League of Cities and Municipalities, 950 A.2d 362 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)

Regularly Used Non-Owned
Vehicle Exclusion Upheld

An October 2008 PA Superior Court decision clarifies when an insurance company can legally use the regularly used non-owned vehicle exclusion in an auto policy to deny a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim.  A man from Pittsburgh was driving a taxi he leased from a cab company when he was hit by a negligent driver.  The defendant's insurance company paid its policy limit.

The PA underinsured motorist attorney then filed a UIM claim against the taxi driver's own private car insurance company - Nationwide.  The Pennsylvania underinsured motorist case was denied based upon exclusions regarding "regularly used, non-owned vehicle" and "use for hire".

The Allegheny Trial Court Judge ruled in Nationwide's favor, as did the PA Superior Court.  Since Nationwide did not insure the taxicab and that vehicle was being operated for the purpose of carrying passengers for compensation, the Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim was properly denied.  Nationwide v. Easley, 960 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2008)

Ambiguous Exclusion Language
Results in UIM Recovery

A 2008 opinion of the PA Superior Court increased the options for those making a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist (UIM) claim.  A young girl was injured in a car crash while a passenger in her mother's automobile.  The personal injury victim received the full policy limit from her mother's insurance company.

Her Pennsylvania underinsured motorist lawyer filed a PA UIM claim against her father's insurance company.  Erie denied the claim based on the policy's regularly used non-owned vehicle exclusion.  The trial judge agreed with Erie and dismissed the Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim.

The PA Superior Court accepted the legal theories of the Pennsylvania underinsured motorist attorney and overturned the lower court's decision.  The Appeals Court ruled that the word "using" was ambiguous.  If Erie meant to include all people in the car, it should have used the word "occupying."  Since it didn't, the passenger was able to make a Pennsylvania underinsured motorist claim.  Erie v. Loury, 941 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2008)