### J - A14023 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ALFIO J. RANOCCHIA A ND JUNE RANOCCHIA, HIS WIFE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. ERIE INSURANCE AND ERIE INSURANCE E XCHANGE AND ERIE INSURANCE G ROUP AND ERIE INSURANCE C OMPANY 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 Cour t.

### 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, 1 

### and 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 dispos es 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 mate rial 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 clea r: 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 law 2 

### has specifically st ated 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 polic y 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 Moto rists 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 MVF RL at 75 Pa.C.S. § 1731(c)(1), the court “cannot apply law where it does not belong,” 5 

### and 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 co urt. 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 man dating 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 argume nt that the forms do not comply with Section 1731(c)(1) is unavailing.

### -- · --~ · ----~---·-- ~ -·------ ~ ------ !

--- ·

~------------- , secure d. B e cause th e wai vers ate invalid, they say, Plaintiffs are entitled to rec ov er 

### DIM bene fits und ~ 

### 'the ex ces s p o licy . While 

### this precis e issu e h a s n e v er been addre ssed 

### by o ut app e llate c~ urts, o f the p o li cy and h o ldin g that 

### UThf b enefits w ere part o f th e e xc e s s p o licy until th e wai v ers were they say, a pro~i o n of th e p o licy e xpress ly e x cluding UIM b e n e fits p revents Plaintiffs . fro m reco vering . Co nv ers ely, P laintiffs atgu e that th e defi ci e n t waiv ers of DIM co ver age provided by Defe n dants an d inclu ded 

### in the exc ess p o licy create an amb i guity th ereby ne ces s i tatin g ref ormati on not app l y to exc ess insur an ce po li ci es. Even 

### if th e 

### law do es apply to this p arti cular e xcess policy , defi ci ent waive.ts o f the be n efits. 

### In their m o tion, Def e ndants co ntend that o ur MVFRL simply d oes under an exce ss ins uranc e po li cy containing both an exp re s s ex clusion of su ch ben e fits and legally Re s p o nsibility Law 

### (''MVFRL~') app li es to and provid es underinsured mo to ris t 

### (''UIM'') benefi ts alternatively, S utntn aty · Judgtnent, w hich a sks wheth er the Pe nn sylv ani a M o tor V ehicle 

### Financial Prese ntl y b e fore us . 

### is the D efendants ' Moti o n for Judgment o n the Pl eadings o r , I. Introduction 

### G IBB ONS,}. MEMORANDUM & 

### ORD E R GRANTING

D EFENDANTS' M OTION F OR SUMMARY JOD GMENT No . 2014-CV-4555 Defendants, ERIE lNSURANCE , ER.IE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, ERIE IN SURANCE GROUP , and ER.IE ~SURANCE COMPANY , 

### v . Plaintiffs , ALFIOJ. RANOC C ~ and JUNE 

### RAN O CCHIA , his wif e ; 

### ::a

In th e Court of Common P{s'a~. )> :?; 03: 

### of L ackaw ann a 

### C o unty ::o rn c::> ;:,<; )> 0 ;o c::: )> ;o 

### en ;><;- 

### r0 ~-< O C> u, 

## ~ :-n 

# < 'Tl 

# ;:;o - C.- re 

# .,, o z o o 3 · 0 )> 

### Civil Divis io n 

# < 0 1- 1 

# c'

z;; > 0

N ::z:~

- r -i 0 

### c.n 

### -< :z: (/1 ( Circulated 08/12/2016 02:38 PMJ u dgment n ow ripe for dispo s ition, we 

### tum to out s tandards of revie w .

Plain ti ff s di d n o t oppos e same . 

### Wi th . Eri e 's . Motio n s· for Judgment on the P l eadings and S ummary <;>n August 6 , 20 1 5 , at 

### which time we granted Erie 's Motion ~ o S tay th e b a d faith 

### claim sin c e . outc o me of out decision . On Aug us t 4, 2015, Ranoc c hia filed a resE o n se . Oral ar gum ent wa s h el d 

# = . S umm ary Judgmen t, and a Moti o n for a S tay of Ranocchia ' s bad faith claim " pendiug the 2 0 15 . Teo. days later , Eri e fil e d th e instan t Mo ti on for.J u dgtnent ;'ii"the Pleadings o r, alternativ el y, 

### . . an d Ne w Matter on Octo ber. 10 , 2 0 14 . Ran o cchia the n filed hi s Repl y to N e w M atter on 

### J anuary S , for d e clar ato.ty j udgment, breac h of c o ntrac t, and bad faith . 

### (See g en e ralfy id.) . Eriefile d its Ans w er. On August 1 5 , 20 14 , Rano c chia and his wife b e ganthis actio n a gain st Erie advancing claims 

### Ill . Proc e dur al History: 2 2 ) . reconsideration on Juue 2 7, 20 1 4, Eri e 

### again re jected DIM c ov era ge on Jul y 8 , 2014 . 

### (Id. at 

# ,r ,r 2 1- 1 9). On May 2, 2 0 1 4 , Eri e denied the 

### claim. 

### (Id. at 

## 1 20 ) . Despite Ran oc chia's plea for benefits und er a s eparate, e xce s s insuran c e p oli cy c alle d the Personal C atasl:to p he P o licy. 

### ( Id. at 

# ,r On Marc h 24 , 2 014, Ran o cchi a made demand u p o n Erie fo r p aytn e nt of a dditi o nal UJM own insurer, Defendant Erie . 

### (Id. at 

## ~f 15-18) . · tortf eas o..t 's 

### limits of liab ili ty insuranc e , and $309,0 00 

### in underin s ure d m o toris t c o verage fro m his Co un ty , Pennsy l vania , (P i s.> Co mp l., 

## if 9, 0 5/1 5 /14 ). H e subs e qu ently accep ted $ 1 5,000, the 

### in a h ea d

- o n · m o tor vehicle accide n t o n State Route 307 , R o aringb.t:o o k T o wn s hip , Lackawanna 

### II. · . Fac tual B ackgtound Th e undisputed facts are that on F ebtuaty 7 , 20 1 4, Plaintiff .Alfi o 

## J. Ranocchla w as .inv o l v ed po li cie s· that Def

e ndants ate en titl e d to j u dgmen t a s a m atter o f 

### law . we ate p ersuade d b y e xisting case 

### law regarding the MVFRL ' s in ap p lic ability to e xc ess insuran c e



### -~--- !

---- - 

## -- - - ---- - --- - --- 2j u dgm en t and provi des , in relev an t p a.rt, as f o llo w s : 10 38 (8th e d, 

### 2 00 4 ): P e nnsyl vania Rul e o f 

### Ci vil Pro c edure 1 035 gove.t:os mo tion s for s ummary ' e vi d ence i s l e gall y in s uffi cie n t to s upp o rt a verdi ct 

### in the nonm ovan t' s fav o r , " 

### B lack 's 

### Low D i c ti o n ary



## . . . b ecause there 

### is no genuin e is s u e of material 

### fact to be d eci d e d by a fac t- finder -e- that i s , b e cause th e A m o ti o n fo r 

### summary ju dgme n t is " ( a ] requ e s t that th e c ourt en ter j u dgtn ~ nt witho u t a trial 2 . Su mm ary



### [u dgm e u t a g ain s t wh om th e mo tion is fil e d, co n s id ering o nl y th o s e fac ts whi ch were s p e cifi c ally a dmi tted , " 

### Id. o f fact, admissio ns , and an y docum en ts pro p erl y attach ed to th e p l ea din gs p resented by th e party th e pl ea din gs an d re l e v an t do cume n ts." 

### Id. We mus t als o " accept as true all we ll p l e ad e d s tate me n ts 

### de nied, 96 A. 2d 10 2 9 

### (P a. 2 0 1 4)). In rul ing o n s u c h a m otion , w e mus t co ~ e our co n s id erati on " t o 

### a matter o f law. " 

### Rd11 r

k e v. Pa . Nat. 

### M

11S'. Ca s. for . C«, 1 1 6 A.3 d 

### 8 7, 91 (Pa . S up er. 

### 20 1 5) ( quo ting 

### Sw . B mw Prod. C

o. v . F onst 

### Be s. , IL G, 8~ A.3 d 17 7 , 18 5 (P a . Sup er. 2 01 3) ( ci tati o n o mi tted) , 

### appe a l be en tere d w hen 

### th ere are no dis pute d i ssu es o f fact an d th e m o ving · party 

### is enti tl e d to j udgmen t 

### as Pa. R.. C . P . 10 3 4. 

### «A m o ti o n for j udgm e n t on the ple a din gs 

### is similar t o a d e murrer " s u ch that i t "m ay



### (b ) Th e co urt s hall enter s uch j u dgm ent o r o rd er a s shall be pr o p er on th e 

### pl eadin g s. · 

### . ·. . ( a ) Afte t th e rele van t pl eadings are cl os e d, b u t 

### .wi thin s u ch time as n o t to unre as o nab l y d elay th e 

### trial, an y p ~ may m o v e fo r jud gtn en t o n th e 

### pl eadings. . part, as foll ows : .the c ourt' s interp re tati on of th e law . " 

### B la ck 's Li w Dir: lio11a,y 10 3 8 ( 8th. e el 2 0 04 ). P e nnsy l vania Rul e o f Civil Pro ce dure 1 0 34 go verns m oti o ns 

## fo:t: j udgm ~ut o n the pl eadings an d provi d es, 

### in rel e v ant b ased o n th e pl eadin gs on file , without accep ting e vi den c e , as w~ en the outc o me of the case res ts ? n A . mo tion fo r ju dgm ent o n th e pl eadings 

### is a "p arty ' s requ es t that the c ourt rul e 

### in i ts fav o r 

### 1. Judgm e nt 011. 

### the l'

leadit:igs . . . 'J" 

### IV. Standard o f R evie w

3 - . - -

### ----- - l ---- Ran oc chia i s entitled to UIM c o v er a g e. p ro vid e d 

### in th e P ers onal C ata stro ph e 

### P olicy ate l eg all y defici en t und er the MVFBL such th at 

# . P er s o n al C ata s tro phe P o li cy; an d sec o nd, if it d oes , w h e th er th e written w ai v er s of UIM c o vera ge W e address th e i s sues before us in tandem : fa s t, w h e th er th e MVFRL appli e s to R auoc chia ' s V . Di s c uss ion 

### Id. at 90 9 (qu oting 

### P etrina, 46 A.2d at 798) .

We 

### view th e re c ord 

### in the light m os t fav or ab l e . to the n on - m oving p arty , and



### · all d o ubts as to the existence of a g enuin e is s ue of material fact mu s t b e res o lved a gains t the .rnov.ing 

### party . Only where there 

### is n o genuke issu e as to any 

### material fact an d i t is d ear that th e m oving p arty is enti tl e d . to a j u dgm en t as a matter of law 

### will s umm ary jud gme n t b e en tere d All d o ubts as to the exi s tence of a g enuin e is sue of a material fact mu s t be res o lved agains t th e moving p a.tty. 

### .Atlanti« Rich.fold Co., 11 5 A.3d 9 0 6 , 

### 908-0 9 (P a . S up er. 20 1 5) ( qu o tin g 

### Pe trina v. Allie d Glo w C o rp., 46 .4.2d 

### 79 5 , 798 (Pa . S uper. 20 1 2 ) (ci tations omitte d)) . When doing s o, . e vid e nc e of rec o rd to d e termine whether th ere exists a g enuine is su e of material fact. " 

### Cmw e ll v.



### Afte.t the relevant p l eadiogs are clos e d, but 

### within suc h time as n ot to unreasonably· de lay 

### trial, any party .tnay mov e for summary j u dgtnent 

### in w ho le or 

### in part as a matter of law . 

### · (1) . . wh e never there is n o genuin e issue of any material fact as to a n e ces s aty eleme nt of th e cause of action or defense which c o ul d be establis h ed by a dditi o nal disc o very 

### o r expert report, o r 

### (2) if, after the c o mpl e tion of discovery rel ev ant to the moti o n, including the production of expert rep o rts, an a d ver s e party w h o 

### will bear the b urden of p roo f at 

### trial has failed to p to du ce eviden c e of facts ess e n tial to the caus e ~facti o n or d e f

en s e 

### which in a 

### j u.ty trial would require th e is s ues t o be s W?:tnitted to a 

### j uty . Pa . RC . P . 

### 1035 .2 . 'I n ruling o n . a motion f ~ r s uni..maty

f udgtnent, the 

### ttial c ourt mus t review 

### " all the\ " Plaintiff i s . . . s e eking an. addi ti o nal UIM . r.eco ve.ry und er the P erso nal C at as !J: o p he Policy , an umb rella o r excess liab ility in s uran c e p o li cy . . .. " D efs . ' Br.. in S up p. , p . 2, 0 1 / 1 5 / 15. " Th e Decl ar ati on s P a g e fo r the cata s trophi c l o s s p o li cy indi cates th at it is in exces s o f th e au to mob il e liability p o li cy hel d b y Mt. and Mrs. Raaocchia with Erie. " Pis . ' B r . in Opp ., p . 4- , 08/04/ 1 5 . .

- --$ -----.......... - --- 1. 

### Does th e po li cy i tse lf p rovide that it i s an 

### e xc es s o r umb rella p oli cy? 2 . D o e s the po li cy requite th e in s ure d 

### to catty un d e.tlying li ab ili ty co v e.rage ? 3 . I s th e cl aim un d er c ons id erati on ma d e by a 

### fir s t - party an d 

### n o t b y a third 

### p a;ty .in j ure d in th e ac ci d ent? · 4 . I s th e party m aking the claim no t 

### . legally re quited to pay fo r th e dama g es to th e 

### in j ure d p ers o n? 

### 5. Do es the p o li cy affo rd c o v er ag e to the in sure d in g e neral r ather 

### than to a 

### particul ar. a v ehi cl e ? 6 . I s th e po li cy d es igne d to .in sure a s peci al ri s k? 7 . W a s th ere a p remium c harged fo r liab ili ty c o ver a ge , 

### bu t not ~ o :t UJM c o v ~age? . 8 . 

### I s th e p remium paid s ubs tantially l o wer th an 

### o n e w hi ch wo ul d p rovi de for similar covet. age und er 

### a 

### p.ciroa.ry automob il e liab ili ty p o li cy ? 9 . I s th e amoun t 

### o f th e c over age . s ub stantiall y 

### hig h et th an that affo rd e d under aprimary 

### auto mo b il e in suranc e p o li cy fo r th e same .ris k? th e fo ll o wing facto r s , w h ete app licab l e: w hich "[w as ) is s u e d to satis fy the MVFRL ," PJ 1 b i 11 , 3 2 F.3d at 8 18 , co urts sh oul d co n si d er, inkr alia, 7 7 6 4 A. 2d 10 63 

## (Pa . 2000) . " [I] n d e tettnio in g w h e th er a parti~ po li cy is a moto r v ehi cl e po li cy Co. 

## of Ne w Yo r k v . 

### D otte ry, 43 F . S upp . 2d 5 0 9, 5 1 4 (E .D . P a. 1 9 9 8 ) . ( citati o n s modified) ) , ap pe al d e n i ed, Gen erall y, an exces s 

### p o licy is o n e that "p to yi de s for p ayment of that p o rti on. o f the claim ' that re main s unpaid once o th er LJiability] c ov e.rage i s exhauste d. " .Axto . · Und m ll!it m[, IncJ v. F

ire man 's F ,md lns. 

# c; 87 4 F . 2d 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 (3 d Cit. 1 989 ) . 

### An umbrella poli cy is a type of exces s p olicy. B ee n;, Evpire F

ire and M a rine 1 111. C

o . , 7 5 1 A. 2 d 2 3 8, 2 40

- 41 (Pa . Sup er , 20 00 ) (qu o tin g N otthemJ n r . P e nn s yl v ania ' law recognizes that no t all in s ur an c e p olicies that af fo td co v e.ta g e f

o r 

### lk b ility arising o ut o f th e o p erati o n o r 

### us e o f automo bil es ate c o nsidere d m o to r 

### vehi cle liab ility po licies. S p e cifi call y ; 

### if th e p oli cies ate

. ex c es s o r umb rella 

### poli cies , th e y are 

### no t s ub j ec t to the z e quiteme n ts 

### of th e. MVFRL. Ele t

. ! 11 1. 

### Co . v . lli1bin; 32 F.3d 814 ( 3 d Cit . 1994 ) ; Krome r 

### v. Rt /iance 1 11-S. Co., 677 

### A .2 d 1 22 4 

### (Pa . S uper . 

### 1 99 6). 

## . .. 

# . poli cy. 1 

### As our S up erior C ourt h a s writte n : Th e parti es ap p ear to ag te e that th e P erso nal Catastro p h e P olicy is an ex c ess, or umb rella, . 1 . The MVFRL do e s not a pply to Rsu oc clii e'

s Personal Ceta s tro

pbe Poli cy . (

_ _ !_

_ , _...... . . . ... .. . . ~ i . 

### 1. · Yes. Th e Po li cy 

### p rovi des that ~tie 

### ' \v.ill p ay 

### fo r only personal injuty 

### or p roperty damage c ovete d by 

### this policy. 

### This applies o nly to 

### damages in excess o f th e und etlyin g 

### limit o r Self

- In sured Re tention," Perso n al . Catas troph e Po li cy , p. 

### 4 (emp ha sis a dd ed) ; 

### I e e a/J o id. at p. 

### 4 , .Litnit of Liab ili ty : . . 

### 2 . Yes. "Subject to the maintenan c eof 

### underlying insurance con di tion, you agree th e 

### uo.detlyiog Iimits · o f insurance shown on the 

### Declarations 

## an d/ or 

### Amended Declaration s , which is 

### part of 

### this po li cy, are in 

### f orce at incep ti on of 

### this po li cy and 

### will . be maintained as long as per s onal catastro p he liability coverage is p rovi d e d » 

### I d. at p. 1 . 

### 3. Yes , first-party Plaintiffs .Alfio an d June 

### Ranocchia . See id. at 

### P : 1. 4 . Yes . Fo ll owing 

### his accident, Ran o cchia accep ted 

### $15 , 0QO, the bodily 

### injuty limi t, fro.tn. the to rtfeaso r 's ins uran ce comp an y ; and 

### $300,000 in underinsure d motoris t c o v e.rage from 

### his o wn insurer, Defendant 

### Erie. (Pls. ' Cornpl. , 

# im 15- 1 8) . Se e Bq; •te v. St. P 11 11 / Fire and Marine 

### Im . Co. , N o . 92-652 5 , 1 9 9 3 

### WL 17 537 1 (B.D.Pa . May 25 , 

### 1 993) ("[l)n an uninsure d motoris t ac cident, the p arty th at 

### is l egally re quired to pay for damages 

### is th e uninsure d m o torist, " ), re c on sidera tion 

### d en i e d, 1 993 WL 229961 (E.D . Pa. J un e 

### 25 , 199 3 ). 5 . Yes. Unlike the De clar ations of the Fatnil y Au to Ins ur ance Polic y, the D e claratio ns o f the Person al Catas trop h e Policy provide no vehicles, and only list the n ames of the in s ured. See Declarations of Family Au to 

### Ins. Policy , p. 

### 1 ; Declaration s of 

### Personal Catast.to phe P o licy, p. 1. 6 . Pro bab l y no t, as the Policy p rovides general excess co v erage r ather than · specialized coverage , 

### See Dolte,y, 43 F . Supp . 2 d at 

### 520 ( " [I]he p o li cy insure s a special . risk as s ociate d with Keys t one employe es 

### dtiving custo mers ' vehicles whil e th e v ehicles were gataged at the Ke ystone location . "); 

### see 

# am St. Pn11/ . Merm,y J nI. C o. v: Corbett, 630 A.2d 

### 28 (Pa . Supe.r . 

### 1 993 ) ( " [IJhe co n trac ted c o vet age 

### limitati o ns in the antiqu e au t omo b ile .ins uraac e po li cy are vali d an d enforceab le . ") . 7 . The full term 

### premi um for the P ers onal Catastrophe Policy is 

### $148 . 00. It d oes n o t s p ecify p remiums charg ed for either li :ibility coverage o r 

### DIM: c overag e . 

### Se e Declarati ons of Per s onal Cata s trop he P o licy , P : 1; D_!!cl~~ ti. 9.n.s o f Fttnily Auto Ins . Policy, p . 1 . 8 . Yes . While the p remium under the Personal C atastrop h e Policy is 

### $ 14 8.00, th e . p remium under the Fatnily Auto Policy is 

### $1 ,526. See D e claratio n s o .f

Personal Catastrophe P olicy, p . 1 ; D e clarations ofFatnily Auto In s . P o li cy, p . 1 9 . · Y,es . The c o verage for 

### each o ccurre n ce under the Per s onal Cata s tro phe · P o licy is 

### $ 1,000,000, which 

### ls s ub s tantially 

### highet than any covet.age th ese questio n s as follows : . policy is no t amotor vehicle policy written to satis fy th e 

### MVFRL . " Id. at 

### 517. We have answered . 

## . D ottery, 43 F.Supp.2 d at 

### 51 6 -1 7. "On balance, 

### if the answers to these questions ate yes, then th e

### 7 

## J _ ( quoting 

### Pqylo r

,6 4 0 A.2d at 

### 1235 ) . po li c y 

### lang112gC is clear and un ambig uo us, we 

### will gi v e e ff ec t to th e lan guage o f th e contract " 

### Id. Hartfo rd In s . C

o . , 6 40 A. 2d 1 23 4 , 1 2 3 5 (Pa. 

### 1 99 4)) , affirm ed , 696 A. 2 d 1 5 1 (Pa . 

### 1 99 7) . " Wh en th e manif es te d 

### b y the 1aoguag e 

### <;> f th e wti tten agreement. " 

### Kromtr, 677 A. 2 d at 

### 1 23 0 ( quoting 

### Pqy lo r v: "In in terpre tin g 

# an ins ur ance co ntr ac t, we must ascertain the intent of th e p arties as cov era g e . " 

### Id. W e di s a gre e . Plaintiff s s ay, Eri e " cannot defeat the 

### cla.irn. o f 

### Mr . and Mr s . Ranocchia for underinsured mo t ori s t 

## . . th e e v e n t that th e .in s ure d s sign v alid re j ectio n s . " 

### I

d. at 

### 6. Becau s e " th e re

j e c tion fo rm s are invalid, " coverage un d er the personal cata s trop h e liability p olicy an d to· refuse co v era ge for th e same only in 

### I d. The Ran oc chias there f ore co n clu d e that "th e in ten t o f Eri e w as to p rovi d e und erin s uted mo to ris t Attac h e~ to , . . the Catas tr o phi c L o s s P olicy pro du c e d 

### ~Y Erie . . . ate underinsured an d unin s ured mo t ori s t c o v erage Pennsylvania Cata s tro ph e liab ili ty -s R e

j e ctio n Form s offere d to and s i gne<;l by 

### Mr. an d Mrs. Ran o cchia, If Erie did n ot in ten d to pro vi de uu d erinsured mo toris t c o v e.rag e und er the catas tr op hi c l oss p o li cy, s u ch 

### fo rms wo ul d. no t be requite d. attachmen ts including re j ec ti o n fo t:tns .. . " 

### Pls .' B r . in. Op p ., P : 5, 08/04/15 . Th e y atgue : "\ 

### . 

## . in ap p li c abl e to ex ces s p o li cies

- and in s tea d 

### "re ad ] ] th e p o licy a s a wh o le , to g ether with all th e Ran o cchia s 

### ask us to hurdle thi s well- es tablis h e d axio m o f the law

- tliat th e MVFRL 

### is 2 . Th e Rsui o c c bi ee '

P e r s onal Cata s trophe Poll ey is dear and unambig uou s . We wri te on, h owe v er, to ~ ddtes s th e gtav a.01 e n of th e Ran o cchias ' atgu.tn en t. S p e d.fi c ally, th ese gto unds al o ne , w e mus t gran t 

### Eri e ' s Mo tio n for Sutnma.t:y 

### Judgment 

## . 

# .

. MVFRL , the Ran o c chias canno t p ro du ce e vid e n c e o f facts e ss e ntial to 

### their caus e of actio n. On inde e d 

### an ex c ess p o li cy, th er

_ eb y rende tiog th e 

### MVFRL inappli cab l e to 

### this ac ti on . Wi th ou t the T ake n in the aggre gate , we ate 

### .ini tiall y c o n vin c e d that th e Rano c chias' P er s o nal Catas tro phe P o licy 

### .is

under the 

### Family Auto P o li cy . Se e D eclaratio n s o f Perso nal C ata s tr ophe P o licy, p. 

### 1; D eclarati o n s o f 

### Famil y Auto 

### Ins. Po li cy, 

### P : 1.

# __ ,

__ Moti o n fo.t Sutntnary Ju dgmen t is w~ founded. 

### .An appr o priate O.tdet fo ll ows .

Policy , d oes not, in 

## <;>ut vi e w , create a c onseq~ eo tlal ambiguity . We conclud e, th erefo re , that Eri e's The inclu sio n o f the re j ec ti o n s fortns , albeit inc o n s is ten t 

### ~th th e e xp.te ss 

### language o f th e 

### }!ym es, 2 9 A.3d 1 1 6 9, 1171 (Pa . Sup er. 2 011)), 

### ap peal d e n i ed , 85 A.3d 484 (Pa . 2 0 14) . with the ac c epte d and plain me aning of th e l ang uag e u s ed ." ) ( quotiogA/lrta/e 

### Fi re and C o s . Ins . Co. v . · policy . 

### If th e term s o f a p olicy ate cl ear , 

### this C o urt c ann o t rewrite or gi ve 

### i t a construction 

### in c o nfli c t written and .tnay no t m o dify

_th e plaln meanin g o f th e w o rds un d er th e guis e of '.interpre ting' th e



### . 

# . 72 A. 3 d 641, 645 

### (P a. S uper . 2013 ) ("(C] ourts rnus t co n s tru e the terms of an ins uran c e poli cy as 1302, 130 4 

### (P a. Sup er. 1 9 9 5), 

### appeal d eni.ed, 6 6 8 A. 2 d 

### 11 19 (P a. 1 99 5 )); 

### s e e also Swarner o. M 11t. 

### B en . Gr. , cann o t " create ... c overage wh ere n o n e e xis ts. " Bm1 , 75 1 A. 2 d at 2 4 1 

### (citing B laknfY u: 

### Gqy, 657 A 2 d policie s ate not au to.tn o b.il e in s ur anc e p o lici e s fo.t purpo s e s o f 

### § 1 7 31") . E qually di s p o sitive, we . pre di ctin g th at the Pe nnsy l vania S upre me Co urt w ould ad o pt th e majority rul e that "umbrella 

### Co . , 83 4 F . S upp . 1 4 0, 142 (E.D . Pa . 1 99 3 ) (denying th e plaintiff s moti o n 

### fo.t summary judgtnen t an d du ty to obtain s ign e d waivers of coverage" from th e Ranoc c hias . 

### See S t o11met1 v: Pub, Serv . 

### 'Mllt. Ins. MVFRL.») . Becaus e the MVFRL does no t apply to the 

### Personal Catas tr ophe P o li cy, Eri e "bore no A s we have alteady explained, h owever, we cann o t app l y 

### law where i t d oes not belong . 

### Bl ,b in, 32 F . 3d at 818-819 ( " !N] o Pennsylvania court .. . ha s held that an e x ces s p o licy 

### .is s ubject to the th e s ame p ag~ rather 

### than on s eparate pages, as required by the MVFRL at 7 5 P a . GS.A. § 173 1 (c)(1) . coverage because the P o licy also included U1M and unin s ured m o torist c overage re j ection fonns o n . Personal C atastrophe P o licy, p. 14 . De s pi te the language, the Rano c chias claim enti tl ement to DIM Po~cy reads, 

### "I t is agreed that the insurance d o es not apply t o Und erinsure d Motorists Cov er ag e. " ambiguo u s . Sp e cifically, on p age 1 4 of the a gteetnent, unencumbere d 

### by any unrelate d language, the H ere, the language of th e Personal Catastro p he Policy co ul d not b e 

### any mote cleat ot l es sD aniel E. C ummins , Es q . , dan curomins@co mcas tn et

F or D ef e n dant: James J. C onabo y ,Esq . ;jc on ab o y@law-aca . co m : F OJ: P lain tiff. 

### W ritten n oti ce 

## of th e miry 

## of t he fo regoing O rde r ha s b ee nprovided to e a c b p <1rfY p 11rs11anl lo 

### Pa.R CP. 2% ( a )

a n d(d) lg e~mai/

iflg 

### time- s ta mp ed

",pi es to: cc: GRAN'TED , an d that J u dgtnen t b e e ntere d 

### in fav or of the D efendants . 201 5 , 

### it is hereby 

### ORD E RED that De f e nd ants ' 

### Mo ti on fo r S umm ary Judg m ent is Plain tiff s ' .An swer fil e d on August 4 , 2 015, b riefs file d by the p arties , an d or al a.tgu.tn ent o n Augu s t 6, th e Pleadings an d Moti on fo r 

### Summary Ju dgmen t file d by Defen dants o n 

### J anuary 15 , 2015 , 

### · E RIE IN S URANCE, 

### E RIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE , E RIE IN S URANCE GROUP, an d ERIE INSURANC E" COMPANY , Civil D i vi s ion 

## v. ·::o ~ . 

### r ·rr1 Q p- 

# o, ~ o z; O rn 

### 9 ~)::>- ;o ;o '-- ,,;::~ 

# g~ N - o _ o ..,, cJ1 ~ ~

:z.: 

## ;;o 

# :'.::(.... P-z 1C:: -0 Opc,O ::3 0 1 

### D efen dan ts . No. 201 4- CV

- 4555 '.< 

### 0 

# i;;; ~ ~

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



### . 

# - · ~ ~ 

### ORD ER G RANT IN G DEFEND AN'l'S' MOT I ON 

### F O R SUMMAR Y 

### JU])GMEN'I'CJ1 NOW , 

### this 

# 2 ~f

of N ov emb er , 201 5, up on cons id eration o f th e Mo ~o n for Ju ~e nt on 

### Plaintiffs , 

### In the Co urt of C o mmon Plea s of Lack aw ann a Coun ty ALFIO 

## J. RANOCCHJA and 

## JUNE RAN OCCHIA, hi s wife, ( 

### · '