INSURANCE – FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW – UM/UIM COVERAGE – “MISCELLANEOUS VEHICLE” – MOTORCYCLE – UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE

Erie Ins. Exch. v. Est. of Kennedy, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 569 (December 11, 2025) Stabile, J.
Judges: BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E. OPINION BY STABILE, J.
Appellants, Estate of Elissa J. Kennedy (the Estate), by and through its Administrators, and David Kennedy, individually and in his capacity as the Administrator of the Estate (collectively “Appellant”) 1 seek review of the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County (trial court), granting judgment on the pleadings for Appellee, Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie). Following a fatal motorcycle accident, Appellant sought, and was denied, uninsured/underinsured vehicle (UM/UIM) coverage under an Erie insurance policy purchased by Elissa J. Kennedy and her husband, Dennis Kennedy. The trial court granted judgment for Erie on the ground that such benefits were barred by an exclusion applicable when an insured has suffered damages while occupying a vehicle owned by a relative and not covered under the policy. Finding that the exclusion was valid, we affirm.
Appellant filed a tort claim against Dennis Kennedy, alleging that his negligent operation of the motorcycle caused the death of Elissa J. Kennedy. Progressive settled the matter for the Motorcycle Policy’s liability coverage limit ($100,000). No payments were made to Appellant under the UM/UIM provisions of the Progressive Motorcycle Policy. Appellant instead sought to recover additional benefits under a UM/UIM provision in an Erie household auto insurance policy (the Erie Policy) in which Elissa J. Kennedy and Dennis Kennedy were both named insureds.
In the list of exclusions enumerated in the UM/UIM Endorsement, the Erie Policy also stated that it would not cover an insured’s damages caused by a “miscellaneous vehicle” owned by a relative and not insured for UM/UIM coverage under the Erie Policy.
After Appellant filed its claim with Erie seeking stacked UM/UIM benefits, Erie in turn filed the instant declaratory judgment action to establish that such coverage was barred under the above exclusion in the Erie Policy. In its motion for judgment on the [*5] pleadings, Erie contended that the exclusion applied because:
• Dennis Kennedy’s motorcycle was a “miscellaneous vehicle,” as defined in the Erie Policy’s General Policy definitions
• The damages were sustained by Erie’s insured, Elissa J. Kennedy
• Elissa J. Kennedy’s damages were sustained while she was occupying Dennis Kennedy’s motorcycle; and
• The motorcycle was not insured for UM/UIM coverage under the Erie Policy.
It is undisputed that Elissa J. Kennedy was fatally injured while occupying a motorcycle owned and operated by her husband, Dennis Kennedy, and that his motorcycle was not listed as a “covered” vehicle under the Declarations Page of the Erie Policy. UM/UIM coverage is therefore barred if the Erie Policy’s “miscellaneous vehicle” exclusion is valid and enforceable.
Like the claimants in Mione, Appellant is barred by the exclusion of the Erie Policy from obtaining UM/UIM benefits in the first instance. Appellant did not, or could not, obtain UM/UIM benefits for Elissa Kennedy under the Progressive Motorcycle Policy because it was purchased by and only for the benefit of Dennis Kennedy.
Nevertheless, Appellant argues that Mione does not apply because unlike the motorcyclist in that case, Dennis Kennedy had purchased UM/UIM coverage for his motorcycle, statutorily entitling Appellant to stack the UM/UIM coverage purchased under the Erie Policy. Appellant relies primarily on our Supreme Court’s holding in Gallagher, where a similar exclusion barring UM/UIM benefits was held to be invalid.
To repeat, our Supreme Court held in Mione that a household vehicle exclusion can only be invalidated by section 1738 when the insured seeking to stack UM/UIM coverage has “received UM/UIM coverage under some other policy first, or else Section 1738 is not implicated at all.” Mione, 289 A.3d at 531 (emphasis added). The “miscellaneous vehicle” exclusion in the Erie Policy is therefore valid because the insured, Elissa J. Kennedy, has not first received UM/UIM coverage under Dennis Kennedy’s Motorcycle Policy. Thus, Gallagher is inapposite, and Mione compels the affirmance of the trial court’s ruling.
We now turn to Appellant’s remaining claims concerning whether the “miscellaneous vehicle” exclusion in the Erie Policy, when read together with other policy provisions, is invalid due to ambiguity.
In the General Policy Definitions section of the Erie Policy, a “miscellaneous vehicle” is expressly defined as including “motorcycles.”
No relief is due as to this sub-claim as well. Even if the subject motorcycle is a “motor vehicle” for purposes of the above exclusion, subsection 1731(a) would not entitle Appellant to UM/UIM coverage from the Erie Policy. This statute only required the insureds to be “offered” such coverage. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731(a).
To conclude, the Erie Policy’s exclusions of UM/UIM coverage are valid because they did not interfere with Elissa J. Kennedy’s ability to stack those benefits. Elissa J. Kennedy was not an insured under two separate policies that afforded her UM/UIM coverage, and a waiver pursuant to section 1738 was not necessary to give effect to the exclusions in the Erie Policy. Moreover, the Erie Policy’s terms unambiguously excluded Dennis Kennedy’s motorcycle from UM/UIM coverage. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings for Erie, and the order on review must be upheld.
• The Erie Policy’s exclusion of UM/UIM coverage are valid because they did not interfere with Elissa J. Kennedy’s (passenger on motorcycle) ability to stack those benefits.
• Elissa J. Kennedy was not an insured under two separate policies that afforded her UM/UIM coverage, and a waiver pursuant to Section 1738 was not necessary to give effect to the exclusions in the Erie Policy.
• Moreover, the Erie Policy’s terms unambiguously excluded Dennis Kennedy’s motorcycle from UM/UIM coverage.
• Thus, the lower court did not error in granting judgment of the pleadings for Erie.
• There was nothing ambiguous about the term “miscellaneous” since that specifically defines motorcycles in the policy itself.
• The court relies upon the decision in Mione that a household vehicle exclusion can only be invalidated by Section 1738 when the insured seeking to stack UM/UIM coverage has received UM/UIM coverage under some other policy first or else Section 1738 is not implicated at all.