GEICO Advantage Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86792 (May 7, 2025) Gerald McHugh, Judge.
This case arises out of a tragic automobile accident resulting in the death of Alexander Wetzel. Under Pennsylvania law, a fatal accident gives rise to two distinct but interrelated claims: a claim on behalf of the victim’s estate, known as a survival action, and a claim on behalf of designated statutory beneficiaries, known as a wrongful death action. The claimants here are the parents of the deceased, Paula and Edwin Wetzel, who are eligible beneficiaries under both actions arising out of their son’s death. Their son was covered by a policy of underinsured motorist benefits at the time of his death, which specified a limit payable per “person” for injuries resulting from an accident. The question presented is whether that limit applies separately to each of the two claims asserted here. Given that both the wrongful death and survival claims arise out of the death of the victim insured under the policy, and the language of the controlling provisions, I am constrained to enforce the limit on coverage and grant summary judgement in favor of the insurer.
• Wrongful death and survive claim arise out of the death of the victim insured under an underinsured motorist benefits policy.
• The limit on coverage therefore is appropriate even though there is a claim on behalf of the victim’s estate known as the survival action and the claim on behalf of the designated statutory beneficiary known as wrongful death action.
• Here claimants are the parents of the deceased who are eligible beneficiaries under both actions.
• The specified limit in the policy was “per person” for injuries resulting from an accident.
• The question presented is whether that limit applies separately to each of the two claims asserted.
• Under the coverage provisions in the UIM endorsement, there must be bodily injury to the insured to trigger liability for payment, and only the Wetzel’s son suffered a bodily injury even though other claims rose out of the accident.
• The limitation provision may clear the most a carrier must pay to any one person is $100,000.
• The fact that the accident gives rise to two claims under Pennsylvania law and allows recovery by both the estate and the statutory beneficiary does not alter the operation of the clear language of the policy itself.
