INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-UIM-FORMS-WAIVERS

October 13th, 2022 by Rieders Travis in Financial Responsibility Law

Geist v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27285 (3rd Cir. September 29, 2022) (Rendell, C.J.)  Miranda Geist was injured in an automobile accident. After discovering that the driver's insurance coverage could not compensate her for her injuries, she sought to recover underinsured motorist ("UIM") benefits under her parents' automobile insurance policy. Her parents' insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), offered her up to $100,000 in benefits, but Geist maintains that she is entitled to up to $200,000 in benefits because State Farm failed to seek a waiver to provide a UIM-coverage limit below the bodily injury-coverage limit when her father added a new vehicle to the policy. Geist sued State Farm seeking a declaration to this effect. The District Court dismissed her complaint with prejudice, concluding that Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 1701-99.7 ("MVFRL") does not require insurers to seek such elections of UIM coverage-limits when policyholders add vehicles to their existing policies. Because its decision was correct, we will affirm the District Court's order. Miranda Geist sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident. Seeking compensation for her injuries, she…

Financial Responsibility Law

July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Financial Responsibility Law

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-SUBROGATION-HEART AND LUNG ACT BENEFITS City of Philadelphia v. Zampogna, 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1077 (December 27, 2017) Leavitt, P.J.  The City of Philadelphia appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, granting declaratory judgment in favor of a City employee.  The trial court held that Section 1720 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law prohibited the City from subrogating its payment of Heart and Lung Act benefits to the employee from his third-party tort recovery.  The Commonwealth Court affirmed the order of the trial court.  The City had petitioned to intervene in the employee’s tort action to protect the subrogation lien it intended to assert against any recovery.  The third-party tort action settled, and the money was placed in escrow while the parties litigated the City’s entitlement to its asserted lien.  The City then initiated a declaratory judgment action to establish its right to recover the Heart and Lung Act benefits it paid to the employee from his settlement. As indicated the Commonwealth Court agreed with the trial court and held that under the law no subrogation was allowed.  The 1990 amendment to…