Baclit v. Sloan, 794 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. July 24, 2024) (Beck, J.)
Baclit v. Sloan, Superior Court of Pennsylvania decided July 24, 2024.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J. MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: July 23, 2024, United Financial Casualty Company (“United”) appeals from orders granting summary judgment in favor of W. Scott Baclit, Administrator of the Estate of Timothy S. Baclit, (“Administrator”) and denying United’s motion for J-A06033-24 – 3 – summary judgment. United claims that the commercial insurance policy issued to TKC Trucking, LLC (“TKC Trucking”) did not cover its owner, Timothy S. Baclit (“Baclit”), individually, and therefore, Administrator is entitled to no recovery. Finding that Baclit is an “insured” entitled to receive stacked underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage under the Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), we affirm.
On December 5, 2021, Baclit sustained fatal injuries while aiding Steven Sloan (“Sloan”), who had been involved in a single car accident in Hopewell Township, Beaver County. Sloan’s vehicle had crashed into a bridge retaining wall. Baclit, who had been driving the automobile owned by his mother Lorri A. Hagwood (“Hagwood”), exited the vehicle to provide assistance. While aiding Sloan, Baclit fell from the bridge retaining wall and suffered injuries resulting in his death.
Sloan maintained automobile liability coverage through Farmers Insurance (“Farmers”) in the amount of $100,000. Farmers tendered the limits of the policy to Administrator. Hagwood’s vehicle was insured under a multi-vehicle policy provided by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (“State Farm”) with stacked UIM limits of $300,000.3 As Sloan’s policy was not sufficient to cover the damages sustained by Baclit, State Farm paid the limits in connection with Hagwood’s policy. Baclit also insured his motorcycle through Progressive, which included $15,000 in UIM coverage. Progressive paid the limits to Administrator in accordance with this policy.
At the time of his death, Baclit was the president and sole officer of TKC Trucking, a trucking business. In October 2020, United issued a commercial automobile insurance policy to TKC Trucking (the “Policy”). In October 2021, United sent TKC Trucking a renewal declarations page, which renewed the Policy. Under the Policy, TKC Trucking was the “named insured,” and Baclit and Brian Matheny were designated as rated drivers. The Policy covered a 2008 GMC Sierra and a 2020 load.
The Policy provided $100,000 of stacked UIM coverage for the 2008 GMC Sierra.
“Intra-policy stacking is when more than one vehicle is insured under a single policy of insurance.” “Inter-policy stacking is the addition of coverages for vehicles insured under different policies of insurance.”
TKC Trucking was the only “named insured” on the Policy; Baclit was the sole officer and president of TKC Trucking; Baclit was listed as a rated driver on the Policy; the Policy covered a single vehicle; Baclit, on behalf of TKC Trucking, did not sign either the statutorily-prescribed UIM coverage waiver form or stacking waiver form; and Baclit paid increased premiums under the Policy commensurate his decision to have UIM coverage and stacking benefits.
We are bound by the Miller decision and therefore conclude that Baclit, as the sole officer and president of TKC Trucking, was a named insured under the Policy. See Miller, 510 A.2d at 1258; Lastooka, 552 A.2d at 256 n.1; see also Commonwealth v. May, 271 A.3d 475, 482 (Pa. Super. 2022) (stating that a three-judge panel of this Court “is bound by existing precedent and, therefore, lacks the authority to overturn another panel decision”).
In the absence of finding Baclit was an insured under the Policy pursuant to Miller, the language of the Policy (defining an “insured” in a corporate policy for purposes of stacking UIM benefits) operates as a de facto waiver of stacking coverage because, as in Gallagher, there is no ability for anyone to obtain stacked UIM benefits, despite the fact that United did not obtain the requisite waiver in direct violation of section 1738. To the contrary, as in Gallagher, Baclit paid the increased premiums to obtain stacked UIM benefits under the Policy, and, as the sole officer of the company and the one who made the payments, reasonably expected to receive such benefits. See id. Therefore, unless Baclit is a named insured under the Policy, United’s limited definition of who can constitute an “insured” for purposes of collecting stacked UIM benefits under this single-vehicle business automobile policy would violate the MVFRL.
Based on the foregoing, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order granting Administrator’s motion for summary judgment on his claim for stacked UIM benefits under the Policy and denying United’s motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed.
