2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-9-2015

Vinhh Ho v. Allstate Indemnity

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This June is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Vinhh Ho v. Allstate Indemnity" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 575.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/575
NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

________________

No. 14-3448 

________________

VINH THANH HO, 

 Appellant 

v. 

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY 

________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. No. 2-13-cv-07534) 

District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly 

________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

June 9, 2015 

Before: AMBRO and COWEN, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*

 Judge

(Filed: June 9, 2015) 

________________ 

OPINION** 

________________ 

RESTANI, Judge. 

 

*

 Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, 

sitting by designation. 

** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
2 

Plantiff-appellant Vinh Than Ho (“Ho”) appeals from an order of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment in 

favor of the defendant-appellee, Allstate Indemnity Company (“Allstate”). Although the 

parties agree that Ho signed a Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection Form (“the 

Rejection”) when he entered into a Business Auto Policy with Allstate, the parties 

disagree about the validity of the Rejection. The district court held that the Rejection was 

valid and accordingly ruled in favor of Allstate. On appeal, Ho argues that the Rejection 

does not specifically comply with the requirements of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle 

Financial Responsibility Law, 75 PA. CONS. STAT. § 1731(c), and thus reversal is 

required. Alternatively, Ho argues that we should certify the question of specific 

compliance in the context of § 1731 to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We will affirm. 

 Ho purchased a Business Auto Policy from Allstate which provided $100,000 in 

liability coverage for two motor vehicles. On April 14, 2011, in conjunction with 

purchasing the Business Auto Policy, Ho signed the Rejection. After sustaining injuries 

in an October 6, 2011 motor vehicle accident, Ho sought to recover up to $200,000 in 

stacked underinsured motorist benefits from Allstate because the negligent party in the 

accident did not have insurance sufficient to cover Ho’s losses and damages. Allstate 

denied the claim, citing the Rejection, and Ho brought suit in the Court of Common 

Pleas, Philadelphia County, seeking a declaration that he was entitled to $200,000 in 

stacked underinsured motorist benefits under the Business Auto Policy. Allstate removed 

the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on diversity jurisdiction, and the 
3 

parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment as they do not dispute the facts of 

the case. 

 Pennsylvania law requires insurers to provide underinsured motorist coverage 

unless the named insured rejects those benefits by signing a rejection form prepared by 

the insurer. § 1731(a), (c). Ho admits to signing the Rejection, but argues that he is 

entitled to underinsured motorist benefits because the form he signed does not 

specifically comply with § 1731. See § 1731(c.1) (“Any rejection form that does not 

specifically comply with this section is void.”). The parties agree that, in addition to the 

statutorily required text,1

 the Rejection signed by Ho includes the phrase “If you desire to 

reject this coverage entirely, you must sign the waiver below” between the heading and 

the statutorily required text.2

 According to Ho, because the Rejection does not 

 

1

 Section 1731(c) provides that the rejection contain the following language: 

Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection By signing this waiver I 

am rejecting underinsured motorist coverage under this policy, for myself 

and all relatives residing in my household. Underinsured coverage protects 

me and relatives living in my household for losses and damages suffered if 

injury is caused by the negligence of a driver who does not have enough 

insurance to pay for all losses and damages. I knowingly and voluntarily 

reject this coverage. 

___________________________ 

Signature of First Named Insured 

_________________ 

Date 

2

 The Rejection reads: 

(continued) 
4 

specifically comply with the statute, the policy is reformed by operation of law to provide 

underinsured motorist coverage.3

 The district court determined that the Rejection did 

specifically comply with § 1731 and granted summary judgment in Allstate’s favor. 

 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment de novo and view all inferences drawn from the underlying 

facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower 

Merion Sch. Dist., 729 F.3d 248, 256 (3d Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is proper only 

“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

 Section 1731 provides that underinsured motorist coverage rejections must 

specifically comply with the language set out in § 1731(c), but does not define the phrase 

“specifically comply.” Although courts have not taken a strictly uniform approach in 

 

B. Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection

If you desire to reject this coverage entirely, you must sign the waiver 

below: 

By signing this waiver I am rejecting Underinsured Motorist Coverage 

under this policy for myself and all relatives residing in my household. 

Underinsured Coverage protects me and relatives living in my household 

for losses and damages suffered if injury is caused by the negligence of a 

driver who does not have enough insurance to pay for all losses and 

damages. I knowingly and voluntarily reject this coverage. 

_____________________________ _________________ 

Signature of First Named Insured Date 

3

 Ho also asserts that, because he did not sign a Waiver of Stacking and the policy 

covered two vehicles, he is allowed to add or “stack” the coverage from both vehicles 

under the policy such that he can recover $200,000 in stacked underinsured motorist 

coverage under the Business Auto Policy. Because we hold that the Rejection did 

properly waive underinsured motorist protection, there is no coverage to be “stacked.” 
5 

determining whether language added to the waiver renders the waiver specifically 

compliant, the district court constructed a reasoned harmonization of the cases. 

In this case, the additional language did not introduce ambiguity into the rejection 

form, and in fact made the phrase consistent with the rest of the Motor Vehicle Financial 

Responsibility Law. See Robinson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 520 F. App’x 85, 88–89 (3d 

Cir. 2013); Am. Int’l Ins. Co. v. Vaxmonsky, 916 A.2d 1106, 1109 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). 

It is a better practice not to supplement the statutorily required text, but in this case the 

Rejection included the entirety of the statutorily required text, the addition did not 

introduce ambiguity into the form, did not change the meaning or scope of the coverage, 

pertained to the underinsured motorist coverage waiver, did not refer to a separate 

rejection form for stacking, and was correctly placed before the statutorily required text 

rather than between the required text and the insured’s signature. See Robinson, 520 F. 

App’x at 88–89. The additional language clarifies and emphasizes the gravity of the 

decision to waive underinsured motorist coverage. Thus, the district court properly 

granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate. Ho’s motion to certify the question of 

strict compliance to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is denied. 

We will affirm.