Kenya Major v. Cruz, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 47 (February 13, 2024) (Stabile, J.).
Appeal from summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Major was permissible driver of Kia Sportage that belonged to her mother, Donna Hughes-Major. Was hit from behind by Cruz. Suit filed against Cruz and State Farm, which insured the Sportage and appellant’s own Kia Forte under separate policies. Cruz had $15,000 in bodily injury insurance under his policy. Appellant accepted that amount in settlement of her action against Cruz. Hughes-Major was a named insured on the Sportage policy, which provided $15,000 in UIM coverage. Hughes-Major waived stacking of UIM benefits under the Sportage policy. Appellant and Hughes-Major are named insureds on a policy covering appellant’s Kia Forte. The Forte policy provides $100,000 in UIM benefits per person. Hughes-Major, the first named insured on the Forte policy, signed a stacking waiver as to UIM benefits under the Forte policy. State Farm paid $15,000 in UIM benefits under the Sportage policy and refused any additional payment. On appeal, appellant abandoned her challenge to Hughes-Major stacking waivers. Appellant therefore relied exclusively on the coordination of benefits clause, arguing that the clause takes effect where two policies apply to the same injury and where inter-policy stacking has been waived. The argument is that the coordination of benefits clauses enforce and/or mitigate the affect of stacking waivers by providing coverage only up to the higher of two applicable UIM coverage limits. In this case, unlike Donovan v. State Farm, 256 A.3d 1145 (Pa. 2021), the validity of the insured stacking waiver is not at issue. The question is whether both the Sportage and the Kia UIM coverages apply to appellant’s injury. However, the policy says there is no coverage for an insured who sustains bodily injury while occupying a motor vehicle owed by you or any resident relative if it is not your car or a newly acquired car. This household exclusion exempts from uninsured motorist coverage any coverage for bodily injuries sustained while occupying a vehicle owned by the named insured, the named insured’s spouse, or a resident relative of the named insured, but not a vehicle insured under the policy in question. Here, appellant, a named insured on the Forte policy, was occupying a vehicle, the Sportage, owned by Hughes-Major, a resident relative of appellants but not insured under the Forte policy. The Sportage is not “your car” or a “newly acquired car” within the meaning of the Forte policy. On its face, therefore, the household exclusion plainly applies. Because there is stacking waivers in place for both potentially applicable policies, the rationale of Donovan and other case law does not apply. The Forte policy’s household exclusion bars coverage of appellant’s bodily injury in this case because the injury occurred while appellant, a named insured on the Forte policy, was driving a car owned by her mother (a resident relative) but not insured under the Forte policy. Because only the Sportage policy applies to appellant’s injury, the coordination of benefits clause in the Sportage policy has no effect. The Forte policy’s household exclusion is valid and enforceable. Since the Sportage policy’s UIM coverage is the only UIM coverage applicable to the injury appellant sustained in this case, the coordination of benefits clause has no effect. Appellant was not entitled to recover UIM benefits under the Forte policy.
