Erie Ins. Exch. v. Russo, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 335 (July 22, 2025) Stevens, P.J.E
This appeal arises from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County granting a declaratory judgment, sought by Appellee Erie Insurance Exchange (“Erie”), that Erie could deny Appellant underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage through application of the “regular use” exclusion1 present in Appellant Russo’s personal automobile policy. After careful consideration, we affirm, albeit on different grounds.
On November 19, 2018, Defendant, Richard Russo (“Russo”), while in the course of his employment and while operating a vehicle supplied by his employer, Lancaster Plumbing, Heating, Cooling and Electrical, was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Russo was covered by his employer’s insurance policy for the work vehicle he was driving, and he received the maximum UIM benefits under that policy in the amount of $35,000.00. Because of the seriousness of Russo’s injuries, he then filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits under his own personal automobile insurance policy issued by Plaintiff, Erie Insurance Exchange (“Erie”).
We first consider Russo’s third issue, as our resolution under the facts of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) stacking issue raised therein is dispositive of Russo’s remaining issues. Specifically, Russo contends that he is “an insured” under employer Lancaster Plumbing’s Donegal auto policy and may, pursuant to Section 1738 of the MVFRL, add to the UIM payment he received from Donegal the stacked UIM coverage he purchased in his personal Erie auto policy. We disagree.
Russo is not “an insured” under the Donegal policy for purposes of Section 1738, as he neither meets the MVFRL’s definition of “an insured” pursuant to Section 1702 nor qualifies with respect to the Donegal policy as a “class-one insured” under decisional law. Simply receiving UIM coverage for injuries sustained as an occupant in a first priority vehicle does not make one “an insured” under the vehicle’s policy who is then entitled to stack one’s personal auto policy UIM coverage.
Therefore, because Russo was not entitled to stack his Erie UIM coverage atop the Donegal UIM coverage received, we conclude he may not prevail on the issues he raises in challenge to the trial court’s declaratory judgment that “there is no underinsured motorist coverage available to Richard Russo on [his personal auto policy under Erie Insurance] in connection with the November 19, 2018, motor vehicle accident[,]” albeit on different grounds.
Order affirmed.
