Category: Financial Responsibility Law

Erie Ins. Exch. v. Mione, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 172 (February 15, 2023) (Wecht, J.)  This case concerns the enforceability of two household vehicle exclusions in a pair of automobile insurance policies. The courts below held that the exclusions were valid and enforceable, citing this Court's 1998 decision in Eichelman v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 551 Pa. 558, 711 A.2d 1006 (Pa. 1998). Appellants here, husband and wife Albert and Lisa Mione, contend that the lower courts erred in applying Eichelman, arguing that this Court sub silentio overruled that decision in Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 650 Pa. 600, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019). We reject the Miones' argument, and we affirm. In 2018, Albert Mione ("Mione") was in a collision while operating his motorcycle. Mione's motorcycle was insured by Progressive Insurance, under a policy that did not include UM/UIM coverage ("the motorcycle policy").  Albert and his wife Lisa ("the Miones") jointly owned a car, which was insured by Erie Insurance on a single-vehicle policy that included UM/UIM coverage with stacking ("the automobile policy"). Mione's adult daughter Angela also lived in the couple's home, and she too owned a car, which Erie…

Pasparage v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7179 (W.D. Pa. January 13, 2023). Plaintiff Dennis Pasparage ("Plaintiff") was injured in a car accident caused by a negligent driver. The parties agree that the driver was at fault for the accident and agree that his insurer has tendered the full limits of his liability policy. Through this breach of contract action, Plaintiff seeks additional recovery under the underinsured motorist ("UIM") provisions of his insurance policy, issued by Defendant Progressive Specialty Insurance Company ("Progressive"). The parties dispute the extent of Plaintiffs injuries that were caused by the accident, and Progressive has denied Plaintiffs UIM claim. Progressive has filed a Motion in Limine seeking to preclude references at trial to Progressive as the named defendant. Progressive contends it would suffer unfair prejudice if a jury was aware of its relationship to this action. Thus, Progressive requests that the parties use the name of the non-party driver as the defendant. Progressive argues that the substitution is in accord with "the substantive law of the forum state — Pennsylvania," and the non-dipositive opinion issued by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Stepanovich v. McGraw, 2013…

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-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…