Higgins v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 561(Pa. Superior Ct., December 26, 2024)(Sullivan, J.)
OPINION BY SULLIVAN, J.: Marquita Higgins (“Higgins”) individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America (“Nationwide”). We affirm.
Higgins is a Pennsylvania resident seeking to represent a class of similarly situated persons. During the application process for an auto-insurance policy (“[the policy]”), Nationwide gathered information about Higgins, which indicated that Higgins owned one vehicle and that there were no other drivers, vehicles, or policies in Higgins'[s] household. Higgins elected to stack [uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist “UM/UIM”] coverages and was charged a premium for stacking. UM/UIM coverage allows an individual to recover from a third party that has either no auto insurance or has insufficient auto insurance, which does not fully cover an injured victim. “Stacking” coverage benefits allow an individual to combine coverage limits on a vehicle to increase the potential recovery. Here, Higgins argues that there is no stacking coverage benefit under a single vehicle policy where there are no other policies in the household. Higgins further alleges that Nationwide knowingly sold Higgins stacked coverage benefits that did not exist. Thus, Higgins is seeking a return of premiums paid for the alleged non-existent coverage. Higgins [sought] partial summary judgment for declaratory relief and a return of premiums paid. Nationwide filed a motion for summary judgment in response to Higgins'[s] claims for declaratory relief, return of premiums, injunctive relief, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”). The trial court granted Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment and denied Higgins’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Having thoroughly reviewed the law and the record; we find no error in the trial court’s ruling. Our conclusion is reinforced by the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which recently addressed the identical issues in Berardi v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17258, 2023 WL 4418219 (3d Cir. 7/10/23), which held single-vehicle owners with no other household policies can derive benefits from stacked motor vehicle insurance policies. See 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17258, citing In re Insurance Stacking Litig., 2000 PA Super 170, 754 A.2d 702 (Pa. Super. 2000) and disagreeing that Generette compelled a contrary result.
Having thoroughly reviewed the relevant law; we see nothing to distinguish the instant matter from Berardi and find the Third Circuit’s reasoning to be persuasive.