J-A14023-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ALFIO J. RANOCCHIA AND 

JUNE RANOCCHIA, HIS WIFE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellants

v.

ERIE INSURANCE

AND ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE 

AND ERIE INSURANCE GROUP 

AND ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY

Appellees No. 2166 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered November 25, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County

Civil Division at No(s): 2014-CV-4555

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2016

Alfio J. Ranocchia and his wife, June Ranocchia, (collectively, 

“Ranocchia”), appeal from the order entered on November 25, 2015, in the 

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment in 

favor of Erie Insurance, Erie Insurance Exchange, Erie Insurance Group, and 

Erie Insurance Company (collectively, “Erie Insurance”). For the reasons 

below, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A14023-16

- 2 -

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant 

facts and procedural history of this case. See Trial Court Opinion, 

11/25/2015, at 2. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them herein.

Ranocchia presents the following issue for our review:

Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in granting summary 

judgment in favor of [Erie Insurance] when the insurance policy 

at issue contained ambiguities requiring a determination that 

Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law 

(“MVFRL”) applied to the policy and that, accordingly, 

underinsured motorist coverage was available to [Ranocchia.]

Ranocchia’s Brief at 5 (some capitalization removed).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law and standard of review,1and the well-reasoned opinion of the 

Honorable James A. Gibbons, we conclude Ranocchia’s issue merits no relief. 

The trial court’s opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of 

the questions presented. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/2014, at 4-6 (finding: 

____________________________________________

1

 We observe:

We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of 

material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only 

where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is 

clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter 

of law will summary judgment be entered. Our scope of review 

of a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment is 

plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court's 

order will be reversed only where it is established that the court 

committed an error of law or abused its discretion.

Kozel v. Kozel, 97 A.3d 767, 772 (Pa. Super. 2014), quoting Daley v. 

A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 37 A.3d 1175, 1179 (Pa. 2012).
J-A14023-16

- 3 -

(1) the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) 

does not apply to Ranocchia’s personal catastrophe policy where (a) case 

law2 has specifically stated that if a policy is an excess or umbrella policy, it 

is not subject to the requirements of the MVFRL, and (b) pursuant to the 

motor vehicle policy test as set forth in Elec. Ins. Co. v. Rubin, 32 F.3d 

814 (3d Cir. 1994),3 Ranocchia’s catastrophe policy qualified as an excess 

policy, thereby making the MVFRL inapplicable to the action; and (2) the 

language of Ranocchia’s policy was clear and unambiguous, in that it 

specifically stated, “It is agreed that the insurance does not apply to 

Underinsured Motorists Coverage.”4 Furthermore, the court noted with 

respect to Ranocchia’s claim that even though the policy included uninsured 

motorist coverage (“UM”) and underinsured motorist (“UIM”) rejection forms 

on the same page rather than on separate pages as required by the MVFRL 

at 75 Pa.C.S. § 1731(c)(1), the court “cannot apply law where it does not 

belong,”5and because the MVFRL did not apply to the catastrophe policy, 

Erie Insurance did not have a duty to obtain signed waivers of coverage 

____________________________________________

2

 See i.e., Been v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 751 A.2d 238 (Pa. 

Super. 2000).

3

 See also Kromer v. Reliance Ins. Co., 677 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super. 

1996).

4

 Ranocchia’s Personal Catastrophe Policy, at 14; see also Trial Court 

Opinion, 11/25/2015, at 8.

5

 Id.
J-A14023-16

- 4 -

from Ranocchia. Lastly, the court found that the inclusion of the rejection 

forms, albeit inconsistent with the express language of the policy, did not 

create a consequential ambiguity.).6 Accordingly, we conclude Ranocchia’s 

sole claim fails and adopt the sound reasoning of the trial court.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/19/2016

____________________________________________

6

 It merits emphasis that the trial court correctly determined the MVFRL 

does not apply to the catastrophe policy. While Section 1731(c)(1) has 

specific technical requirements for the forms rejecting UM/UIM coverage, 

Ranocchia has provided no case law mandating that an excess policy, not 

subject to the MVFRL, must follow the same technical requirements. 

Accordingly, Ranocchia’s signatures, specifically rejecting UM/UIM coverage 

under the excess policy, are fully operational. Therefore, Ranocchia’s 

argument that the forms do not comply with Section 1731(c)(1) is 

unavailing.
~-------------

--·--~·----~---·--~-·------~------!---· , 

secured. Because the waivers ate invalid, they say, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover DIM benefits 

und~ 'the excess policy. While this precise issue has never been addressed by out appellate c~urts, 

of the policy and holding that UThf benefits were part of the excess policy until the waivers were 

they say, a pro~ion of the policy expressly excluding UIM benefits prevents Plaintiffs . from 

recovering. Conversely, Plaintiffs atgue that the deficient waivers of DIM coverage provided by 

Defendants and included in the excess policy create an ambiguity thereby necessitating reformation 

not apply to excess insurance policies. Even if the law does apply to this particular excess policy, 

deficient waive.ts of the benefits. In their motion, Defendants contend that our MVFRL simply does 

under an excess insurance policy containing both an express exclusion of such benefits and legally 

Responsibility Law (''MVFRL~') applies to and provides underinsured motorist (''UIM'') benefits 

alternatively, Sutntnaty· Judgtnent, which asks whether the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial 

Presently before us . is the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, 

I. Introduction 

GIBBONS,}. 

MEMORANDUM & ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARYJODGMENT 

Defendants, No. 2014-CV-4555 

ERIE lNSURANCE, 

ER.IE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, 

ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, and 

ER.IE ~SURANCE COMPANY, 

v. 

Plaintiffs, 

ALFIOJ. RANOCC~ and 

JUNE RANOCCHIA, his wife; 

::a 

In the Court of Common P{s'a~. )> 

:?; 03: 

of Lackawanna County ::o rn c::> ;:,<; )> 

0 ;o c::: )> ;o 

en ;><;- r0 ~-< 

O C> u, ~ :-n < 'Tl 

- C.- ;:;o 

re .,, 

oo oz 3· 0 )> 

Civil Division 

<0 1-1 c' 

z;; > 

0 

N ::z:~ 

-r -i 

0 c.n -< :z: (/1 

( 

Circulated 08/12/2016 02:38 PM
Judgment now ripe for disposition, we tum to out standards of review. 

Plaintiffs did not oppose same. With. Erie's .Motions· for Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary 

<;>n August 6, 2015, at which time we granted Erie's Motion ~o Stay the bad faith claim since. 

outcome of out decision. On August 4, 2015, Ranocchia filed a resEonse. Oral argument was held 

=. Summary Judgment, and a Motion for a Stay of Ranocchia's bad faith claim" pendiug the 

2015. Teo. days later, Erie filed the instant Motion for.Judgtnent ;'ii"the Pleadings or, alternatively, 

. . 

and New Matter on October. 10, 2014. Ranocchia then filed his Reply to New Matter on January S, 

for declarato.ty judgment, breach of contract, and bad faith. (See generalfy id.). Eriefiled its Answer. 

On August 15, 2014, Ranocchia and his wife beganthis action against Erie advancing claims 

Ill. Procedural History: 

22). 

reconsideration on Juue 27, 2014, Erie again rejected DIM coverage on July 8, 2014. (Id. at ,r,r 21- 

19). On May 2, 2014, Erie denied the claim. (Id. at 1 20). Despite Ranocchia's plea for 

benefits under a separate, excess insurance policy called the Personal Catasl:tophe Policy. (Id. at ,r 

On March 24, 2014, Ranocchia made demand upon Erie for paytnent of additional UJM 

own insurer, Defendant Erie. (Id. at ~f 15-18). · 

tortfeaso..t's limits of liability insurance, and $309,000 in underinsured motorist coverage from his 

County, Pennsylvania, (Pis.> Compl., if 9, 05/15/14). He subsequently accepted $15,000, the 

in a head-on· motor vehicle accident on State Route 307, Roaringb.t:ook Township, Lackawanna 

II.· .Factual Backgtound 

The undisputed facts are that on Febtuaty 7, 2014, Plaintiff .Alfio J. Ranocchla was .involved 

policies·that Defendants ate entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

we ate persuaded by existing case law regarding the MVFRL's inapplicability to excess insurance 

-- -~---!----- - ------------- 

2 
judgment and provides, in relevant pa.rt, as follows: 

1038 (8th ed, 2004): Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035 gove.t:os motions for summary ' 

evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict in the nonmovant's favor," Black's Low Dictionary 

. . . 

because there is no genuine issue of material fact to be decided by a fact-finder-e-that is, because the 

A motion for summary judgment is "(a] request that the court enter judgtn~nt without a trial 

2. Summary [udgmeut 

against whom the motion is filed, considering only those facts which were specifically admitted," Id. 

of fact, admissions, and any documents properly attached to the pleadings presented by the party 

the pleadings and relevant documents." Id. We must also "accept as true all well pleaded statements 

denied, 96 A.2d 1029 (Pa. 2014)). In ruling on such a motion, we must co~e our consideration "to 

a matter of law." Rd11rke v. Pa. Nat. M11S'. Cas. for. C«, 116 A.3d 87, 91 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Sw. 

Bmw Prod. Co. v. Fonst Bes., ILG, 8~ A.3d 177, 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal 

be entered when there are no disputed issues of fact and the moving ·party is entitled to judgment as 

Pa.R..C.P. 1034. «A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer" such that it "may 

(b) The court shall enter such judgment or order as shall be proper on the 

pleadings. · 

. ·. . 

(a) Aftet the relevant pleadings are closed, but .within such time as not to 

unreasonably delay the trial, any p~ may move for judgtnent on the 

pleadings. 

. part, as follows: 

.the court's interpretation of the law." Black's Liw Dir:lio11a,y 1038 (8th. eel 2004). Pennsylvania Rule 

of Civil Procedure 1034 governs motions fo:t: judgm~ut on the pleadings and provides, in relevant 

based on the pleadings on file, without accepting evidence, as w~en the outcome of the case rests ?n 

A.motion for judgment on the pleadings is a "party's request that the court rule in its favor 

1. Judgment 011. the l'leadit:igs 

... 'J" 

IV. Standard of Review 

3 - . -- 
------l---- 

Ranocchia is entitled to UIM coverage. 

provided in the Personal Catastrophe Policy ate legally deficient under the MVFBL such that 

. 

Personal Catastrophe Policy; and second, if it does, whether the written waivers of UIM coverage 

We address the issues before us in tandem: fast, whether the MVFRL applies to Rauocchia's 

V. Discussion 

Id. at 909 (quoting Petrina, 46A.2d at 798). 

We view the record in the light most favorable. to the non-moving party, and 

·all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be 

resolved against the .rnov.ing party. Only where there is no genuke issue as to 

any material fact and it is dear that the moving party is entitled. to a judgment 

as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered All doubts as to the 

existence of a genuine issue of a material fact must be resolved against the 

moving pa.tty. 

.Atlanti« Rich.fold Co., 115 A.3d 906, 908-09 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Petrina v. Allied Glow Corp., 46 

.4.2d 795, 798 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted)). When doing so, . 

evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact." Cmwell v. 

Afte.t the relevant pleadiogs are closed, but within such time as not to 

unreasonably· delay trial, any party .tnay move for summary judgtnent in 

whole or in part as a matter of law . 

· (1) .. whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a 

necessaty element of the cause of action or defense which 

could be established by additional discovery or expert report, 

or 

(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the 

motion, including the production of expert reports, an 

adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial 

has failed to ptoduce evidence of facts essential to the 

cause ~faction or defense which in a ju.ty trial would require 

the issues to be sW?:tnitted to a juty. 

Pa.RC.P. 1035.2. 'In ruling on.a motion f~r suni..maty fudgtnent, the ttial court must review "all the 
\ "Plaintiff is ... seeking an. additional UIM .r.ecove.ry under the Personal Catas!J:ophe Policy, an umbrella or excess 

liability insurance policy .... " Defs.' Br.. in Supp., p. 2, 01/15/15. "The Declarations Page for the catastrophic loss policy 

indicates that it is in excess of the automobile liability policy held by Mt. and Mrs. Raaocchia with Erie." Pis.' Br. in 

Opp., p. 4-, 08/04/15. . 

---$-----.......... ---- 

1. Does the policy itself provide that it is an excess or umbrella policy? 

2. Does the policy requite the insured to catty unde.tlying liability cove.rage? 

3. Is the claim under consideration made by a first-party and not by a thirdpa;ty .injured in the accident? · 

4. Is the party making the claim not .legally requited to pay for the damages 

to the injured person? 

5. Does the policy afford coverage to the insured in general rather than to a 

particular. a vehicle? 

6. Is the policy designed to .insure a special risk? 

7. Was there a premium charged for liability coverage, but not ~o:t UJM 

cov~age? . 

8. Is the premium paid substantially lower than one which would provide 

for similar covet.age under a p.ciroa.ry automobile liability policy? 

9. Is the amount of the coverage.substantially highet than that afforded 

under aprimary automobile insurance policy for the same .risk? 

the following factors, whete applicable: 

which "[was) issued to satisfy the MVFRL," PJ1bi11, 32 F.3d at 818, courts should consider, inkr alia, 

77 64 A.2d 1063 (Pa. 2000). "[I]n detettnioing whether a parti~ policy is a motor vehicle policy 

Co. of New York v. Dottery, 43 F.Supp.2d 509, 514 (E.D.Pa. 1998). (citations modified)), appeal denied, 

Generally, an excess policy is one that "ptoyides for payment of that portion. 

of the claim 'that remains unpaid once other LJiability] cove.rage is exhausted." 

.Axto. ·Undmll!itm[, IncJ v. Fireman's F,mdlns. c; 874 F.2d 188, 193 (3d Cit. 

1989). An umbrella policy is a type of excess policy. 

Been;, Evpire Fire and Marine 1111. Co., 751 A.2d 238, 240-41 (Pa. Super, 2000) (quoting Notthem Jnr. 

Pennsylvania' law recognizes that not all insurance policies that affotd 

cove.tage for lkbility arising out of the operation or use of automobiles ate 

considered motor vehicle liability policies. Specifically; if the policies ate 

. excess or umbrella policies, they are not subject to the zequitements of the. 

MVFRL. Elet. !111. Co. v. lli1bin; 32 F.3d 814 (3d Cit. 1994); Kromer v. Rt/iance 

111-S. Co., 677 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super. 1996). 

... . 

policy.1 As our Superior Court has written: 

The parties appear to agtee that the Personal Catastrophe Policy is an excess, or umbrella, 

.1. The MVFRL does not apply to Rsuoccliie's Personal Cetastropbe Policy. 

( 

__ !__,_ 
................ ~i. 

1. · Yes. The Policy provides that ~tie '\v.ill pay for only personal injuty or 

property damage coveted by this policy. This applies only to damages in 

excess of the undetlying limit or Self-Insured Retention," Personal. 

Catastrophe Policy, p. 4 (emphasis added); Iee a/Jo id. at p. 4, .Litnit of 

Liability: . . 

2. Yes. "Subject to the maintenanceof underlying insurance condition, you 

agree the uo.detlyiog Iimits · of insurance shown on the Declarations 

and/ or Amended Declarations, which is part of this policy, are in force at 

inception of this policy and will. be maintained as long as personal 

catastrophe liability coverage is provided» Id. at p. 1. 

3. Yes, first-party Plaintiffs .Alfio and June Ranocchia. See id. at P: 1. 

4. Yes. Following his accident, Ranocchia accepted $15,0QO, the bodily 

injuty limit, fro.tn. the tortfeasor's insurance company; and $300,000 in 

underinsured motorist cove.rage from his own insurer, Defendant Erie. 

(Pls.' Cornpl., im 15-18). See Bq;•te v. St. P1111/ Fire and Marine Im. Co., No. 

92-6525, 1993 WL 175371 (B.D.Pa. May 25, 1993) ("[l)n an uninsured 

motorist accident, the party that is legally required to pay for damages is 

the uninsured motorist,"), reconsideration denied, 1993 WL 229961 (E.D.Pa. 

June 25, 1993). 

5. Yes. Unlike the Declarations of the Fatnily Auto Insurance Policy, the 

Declarations of the Personal Catastrophe Policy provide no vehicles, and 

only list the names of the insured. See Declarations of Family Auto Ins. 

Policy, p. 1; Declarations of Personal Catast.tophe Policy, p. 1. 

6. Probably not, as the Policy provides general excess coverage rather than 

· specialized coverage, See Dolte,y, 43 F.Supp.2d at 520 ("[I]he policy 

insures a special. risk associated with Keystone employees dtiving 

customers' vehicles while the vehicles were gataged at the Keystone 

location."); see am St. Pn11/.Merm,y JnI. Co. v: Corbett, 630 A.2d 28 (Pa. 

Supe.r. 1993) ("[IJhe contracted covetage limitations in the antique 

automobile .insuraace policy are valid and enforceable."). 

7. The full term premium for the Personal Catastrophe Policy is $148.00. It 

does not specify premiums charged for either li:ibility coverage or DIM: 

coverage. See Declarations of Personal Catastrophe Policy, P: 1; 

D_!!cl~~ti.9.n.s of Fttnily Auto Ins. Policy, p. 1 . 

8. Yes. While the premium under the Personal Catastrophe Policy is 

$148.00, the .premium under the Fatnily Auto Policy is $1,526. See 

Declarations o.f Personal Catastrophe Policy, p. 1; Declarations ofFatnily 

Auto Ins. Policy, p. 1 

9. · Y,es. The coverage for each occurrence under the Personal Catastrophe · 

Policy is $1,000,000, which ls substantially highet than any covet.age 

these questions as follows: . 

policy is not amotor vehicle policy written to satisfy the MVFRL." Id. at 517. We have answered 

. . Dottery, 43 F.Supp.2d at 516-17. "On balance, if the answers to these questions ate yes, then the 
7 J _ 

(quoting Pqylor,640 A.2d at 1235). 

policy lang112gC is clear and unambiguous, we will give effect to the language of the contract" Id. 

Hartford Ins. Co., 640 A.2d 1234, 1235 (Pa. 1994)), affirmed, 696 A.2d 151 (Pa. 1997). "When the 

manifested by the 1aoguage <;>f the wtitten agreement." Kromtr, 677 A.2d at 1230 (quoting Pqylor v: 

"In interpreting an insurance contract, we must ascertain the intent of the parties as 

coverage." Id. We disagree. 

Plaintiffs say, Erie "cannot defeat the cla.irn. of Mr. and Mrs. Ranocchia for underinsured motorist 

. . 

the event that the .insureds sign valid rejections." Id. at 6. Because "the rejection forms are invalid," 

coverage under the personal catastrophe liability policy and to· refuse coverage for the same only in 

Id. The Ranocchias therefore conclude that "the intent of Erie was to provide underinsuted motorist 

Attache~ to , . . the Catastrophic Loss Policy produced ~Y Erie . . . ate 

underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage Pennsylvania Catastrophe 

liability -s Rejection Forms offered to and signe<;l by Mr. and Mrs. Ranocchia, 

If Erie did not intend to provide uuderinsured motorist cove.rage under the 

catastrophic loss policy, such forms would. not be requited. 

attachments including rejection fot:tns ... " Pls.' Br. in. Opp., P: 5, 08/04/15. They atgue: 

"\ 

. . 

inapplicable to excess policies-and instead "read] ] the policy as a whole, together with all 

the Ranocchias ask us to hurdle this well-established axiom of the law-tliat the MVFRL is 

2. The Rsuioccbiee' Personal Catastrophe Polley is dear and unambiguous. 

We write on, however, to ~ddtess the gtava.01en of the Ranocchias' atgu.tnent. Sped.fically, 

these gtounds alone, we must grant Erie's Motion for Sutnma.t:y Judgment 

. . 

. MVFRL, the Ranocchias cannot produce evidence of facts essential to their cause of action. On 

indeed an excess policy, ther_eby rendetiog the MVFRL inapplicable to this action. Without the 

Taken in the aggregate, we ate .initially convinced that the Ranocchias' Personal Catastrophe Policy .is 

under the Family Auto Policy. See Declarations of Personal Catastrophe 

Policy, p. 1; Declarations of Family Auto Ins. Policy, P: 1. 
__ , __ 

Motion fo.t Sutntnary Judgment is w~ founded. .An appropriate O.tdet follows. 

Policy, does not, in <;>ut view, create a conseq~eotlal ambiguity. We conclude, therefore, that Erie's 

The inclusion of the rejections fortns, albeit inconsistent ~th the exp.tess language of the 

}!ymes, 29 A.3d 1169, 1171 (Pa. Super. 2011)), appeal denied, 85 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2014). 

with the accepted and plain meaning of the language used.") (quotiogA/lrta/e Fire and Cos. Ins. Co. v. · 

policy. If the terms of a policy ate clear, this Court cannot rewrite or give it a construction in conflict 

written and .tnay not modify _the plaln meaning of the words under the guise of '.interpreting' the 

. . 

72 A.3d 641, 645 (Pa. Super. 2013) ("(C]ourts rnust construe the terms of an insurance policy as 

1302, 1304 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal deni.ed, 668 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 1995)); see also Swarner o. M11t. Ben. Gr., 

cannot "create ... coverage where none exists." Bm1, 751 A.2d at 241 (citing BlaknfY u: Gqy, 657 A2d 

policies ate not auto.tnob.ile insurance policies fo.t purposes of § 1731"). Equally dispositive, we 

. predicting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would adopt the majority rule that "umbrella 

Co., 834 F.Supp. 140, 142 (E.D.Pa. 1993) (denying the plaintiffs motion fo.t summary judgtnent and 

duty to obtain signed waivers of coverage" from the Ranocchias. See Sto11met1 v: Pub, Serv. 'Mllt. Ins. 

MVFRL.»). Because the MVFRL does not apply to the Personal Catastrophe Policy, Erie "bore no 

As we have alteady explained, however, we cannot apply law where it does not belong. Bl,bin, 32 

F.3d at 818-819 ("!N]o Pennsylvania court ... has held that an excess policy .is subject to the 

the same pag~ rather than on separate pages, as required by the MVFRL at 75 Pa.GS.A. § 1731(c)(1). 

coverage because the Policy also included U1M and uninsured motorist coverage rejection fonns on . 

Personal Catastrophe Policy, p. 14. Despite the language, the Ranocchias claim entitlement to DIM 

Po~cy reads, "It is agreed that the insurance does not apply to Underinsured Motorists Coverage." 

ambiguous. Specifically, on page 14 of the agteetnent, unencumbered by any unrelated language, the 

Here, the language of the Personal Catastrophe Policy could not be any mote cleat ot less 
For Defendant: Daniel E. Cummins, Esq., dancuromins@comcastnet 

F OJ: Plaintiff. James J.Conaboy,Esq.;jconaboy@law-aca.com: 

Written notice of the miry of the foregoing Order has been provided to eacb p<1rfY p11rs11anl 

lo Pa.RCP. 2%(a) and (d) lg e~mai/iflg time-stamped ",pies to: 

cc: 

GRAN'TED, and that Judgtnent be entered in favor of the Defendants. 

2015, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is 

Plaintiffs' .Answer filed on August 4, 2015, briefs filed by the parties, and oral a.tgu.tnent on August 6, 

the Pleadings and Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants on January 15, 2015, 

· ERIE INSURANCE, 

ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, 

ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, and 

ERIE INSURANCE" COMPANY, 

Civil Division 

v. ·::o ~ . r ·rr1 Q p- o, ~ o z; 

Orn 9 ~)::>- 

;o;o '-- ,,;::~ 

g~ N - 

o_ o..,, cJ1 ~ ~ 

:z.: ;;o :'.::(.... P-z 

1C:: -0 Opc,O ::3 01 

Defendants. No. 2014-CV-4555 '.< 0 i;;; ~ ~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~~~,.--~~~~~~~~--iu~,~~~_L..>,<..._~ 

. -· ~ ~ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDAN'l'S' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JU])GMEN'I'CJ1 

NOW, this 2~f of November, 2015, upon consideration of the Mo~on for Ju~ent on 

Plaintiffs, 

In the Court of Common Pleas 

of Lackawanna County 

ALFIO J. RANOCCHJA and 

JUNE RANOCCHIA, his wife, 

( 

·'