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 […]
Tag: financial responsibility law
INSURANCE -FINACIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-UIM-STACKING-HOUSEHOLD EXCLUSION
Erie Ins. Exch. v. Baluch, Pa. Super. LEXIS 3 (Pa. Superior Ct., January 3, 2025)(Panella, PJE) OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: The issue in this case is whether an insured is entitled to stacked UIM benefits although another household policy excludes vehicles that are insured under the policy from the definition of “underinsured motor vehicles.” We […]
INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-UNDER INSURANCE-BAD FAITH
Essis v. United Servs. Auto. Association, 2024 U.S Dist. LEXIS 226599 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Middle Dist. of Pa., December 16, 2024) (Kane, J.) On June 21, 2018, Mr. Essis was involved in an automobile collision that occurred at “approximately 12:32 P.M. on Lincoln Way in Franklin County, Pennsylvania.” (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 7.) Mr. Essis […]
INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-UNDER INSURANCE-“INSURED”
Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids, Mich. v. Bufflap, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214675 (Pa. Middle Dist. Court, November 26, 2024) (P. Wilson, J.) Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment, both of which ask the court to determine whether Defendant Tracy Bufflap (“Bufflap”) is entitled to underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage under the antique automobile […]
INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-UNDER INSURANCE-STACKING-RENEWAL OF A POLICY VERSUS A NEW POLICY
McGuire v. Nationwide, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163290 (U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Pa., September 11, 2024) (Ranjan, J.) J. Nicholas Ranjan, United States District Judge Pennsylvania law allows policyholders to “stack” the number of limits of uninsured (UM) or underinsured (UIM) motorist coverage in an automobile insurance policy based on the number […]
INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-UNDER INSURANCE-HOUSEHOLD EXCLUSION-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM
MidCentury Ins. v. Werley, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 22554, (U.S. Ct. of App., 3d Cir., September 5, 2024) (Smith, J.) OPINION OF THE COURT RENDELL, Circuit Judge. Levi Werley was seriously injured while riding an uninsured motorized dirt bike. When the insurance of the driver that struck him did not compensate him fully for his […]
INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILTY LAW-UNDER INSURANCE-STACKING-CORPORATION AS NAMED IN SHORT
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. […]
INSURANCE-FINACIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-UNDER
Jones v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Pa. Super. LEXIS 273 (Pa. Super. July 3, 2024) (Murray, J.) Jones v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2024, Court of Common Pleas of Erie County decided, July 3, 2024. In this underinsured motorist (UIM) automobile insurance action, John Jones and Tanya Jones (Appellants) appeal from the judgment entered against them and […]
INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-EXCLUSIONS-REGULAR USE EXCLUSION
Dayton v. Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73356, 2024 WL 1745041 (M.D. Pa. April 23, 2024) (Mannion, D.J.). The sole issue in this motion for summary judgment is whether a “regular use” exclusion provision in a motor vehicle insurance policy is unenforceable as contrary to Pennsylvania law. Alan Dayton was injured […]
INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-SIGN DOWN-FORMS-STACKING
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Swenson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70627 (M.D. Pa. (April 18, 2024) (Munley, J.). In this case, the form asked for $35,000, not $300,000. Further, the form indicated that the insured wrote “$300,000” regarding “Designated Individuals”. Also, stacking was waived. The court found that the limits were $35,000, that the $300,000 […]