NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________ No . 1 9

- 2733

________________ COREY DONOVAN; LINDA DONOVAN

v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellant

________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. C i vi l Action No. 2

- 1 7

- c v - 0 3 940 ) District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh

________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 26 , 2020 Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, and RESTREPO , Circuit Judges

( Opinion filed : February 16, 202 2 )2 __________ OPINION *

__________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge

. Corey Donovan was seriously injured while driving his motorcycle. He collected from the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident and from his own motorcycle insurance. But these payments did not cover his medical expenses. So Corey a lso tried to collect on insurance State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company had issued to Linda Donovan, Corey’s mother with whom he lived. State Farm denied the claim. The Donovans and State Farm dispute whether , under Pennsylvania insurance law, Lind a waived inter

- policy stacking for underinsured motorist coverage

. Before proceeding, some background on insurance may be helpful

. Underinsured motorist coverage provides benefits “when a third

- party tortfeasor injures or damages an ins ured and the tortfeasor lacks sufficient insurance coverage to compensate the insured in full.” Gallagher v. GEICO Indem. Co. , 201 A.3d 131, 132 n.1 (Pa. 2019). That is what happened here. “‘Stacking’ refers to the practice of combining the insurance

co verage of individual vehicles to increase the amount of total coverage available to an insured.” Id. There are t wo types of stacking. I ntra

- policy stacking is the aggregation of the coverage limits on multiple vehicles covered under a single policy

— even though not all vehicles are involved in the accident or occurrence

. For example, if a two

- vehicle

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.3

policy provided $50,000 in coverage for each vehicle, int ra - policy stacking would allow the insured to make a claim of up to $100,000. In contrast , inter

- p olicy stacking is the aggregation of coverage limits for vehicles insured under separate policies . Here the dispute is about inter

- policy stacking : Can Corey collect under both his motorcycle insurance and Linda’s automobile insurance ? Because this disput e is one of state law, we certified three questions to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. I ts ruling is dispositive on all issues raised on appeal, and so we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Donovans

. I. The parties agree on the relevant facts. After Cor e y ’s injuries from the motorcycle accident, h e settled with the driver of the other vehicle for $25,000

— the liability limit of that driver’s insurance policy. Corey also made a claim for underinsured motorist benefits on a motorcycle insurance policy State Farm had issued to him. It paid Corey the $50,000 policy limit. Corey then made another claim for underinsured motorist benefits under the automobile insurance policy Linda had from State Farm (hereinafter “the Automobile Policy”)

. It covered three vehicles (none of which was the motorcycle) and offered underinsured motorist benefits up to a limit of $ 100,000. That policy also insured Corey as a resident relative. State Farm denied his claim for benefits under the Automobile Policy, explaining that Linda had waived stack ed underi nsured motorist coverage. Indeed, she had signed a waiver. It recite d :

B y signing this waiver, I am rejecting stacked limits of underinsured motorist coverage under th e policy for myself4 and members of my household under which the limits of coverage ava ilable would be the sum of limits for each motor vehicle insured under the policy. Instead, the limits of coverage that I am purchasing shall be reduced to the limits state d in the policy. I knowingly and voluntarily reject the stacked limits of coverage . I understand that my premiums will be reduced if I reject this coverage. J.A . at 237. This language was (and continues to be) mandated by § 1738(d) of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law . 75 Pa. C ons. S tat. § 1738(d)( 2). In practice, an insured can waive stacked coverage in exchange for a reduced premium.
Two other provisions of the Automobile Policy are relevant. First, it contain ed a “household

- vehicle exclusion” that state d “ THERE IS NO COVERAGE FOR AN INSURED WHO SU STAINS BODILY INJURY WHILE OCCUPYING A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY YOU OR ANY RESIDENT RELATIVE IF IT IS NOT YOUR CAR OR A NEWLY ACQUIRED CAR

. ” J.A . at 3 91 (emphasis in original)

. Corey ’s motorcycle was not included on the d eclaration p age of the Automobile Policy

. T hus , if the household

- vehicle exclusion is valid, it defeats his claim . Second, the Automobile Policy contain ed a “ coordination

- of

- benefits provision ” that explain ed : I f Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage provided by this policy and one or more other vehicle policies issued to you [ i.e. , Linda] or any resident relative [ i.e. , Corey] by one or more of the State Farm Companies applies to the same bodily injury , then:

a. the Underinsured Moto r V ehicle C overage limits of such policies will not be added together to determine the most that may be paid; and b. the maximum amount that may be paid from all such policies combined is the single highest applicable limit5 provided by any one of the policies. We may choose one or more polic ies from which to make payment. Id . at 39 2 (emphas e s in original )

. Translated into everyday language, this mean s that when an insured recovers on multiple policies issued by State Farm, his maximum payment is capped at the highest applicable coverage lim it. If applicable here, this provision limits Corey to recovering at most $100,000 ( i.e. , the “single highest limit” provided by the State Farm policies) in total from his claims on the Automobile Policy and his motorcycle insurance. Since Corey already received $50,000 from the motorcycle policy, he would be limited to a payment of $50,000 from the A utomobile
P olicy. The household

- vehicle exclusion and the coordination

- of

- benefits provision are included in State Farm’s non - stacking policies but not in i ts stacking policies. Compare
i d . at 388, with id. at 391

– 92

. Corey and Linda Donovan sued State Farm in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County seeking a declaration that Corey is entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under the Automobile Policy. After State Farm removed the action to federal court, the parties stipulated to the facts and cross

- moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Do nov ans . State F arm appealed and, at the suggestion of both parties, we certified this case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It accepted the certified questions and issued a comprehensive opinion. Donovan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 256 A.3d 1145 (Pa. 2021).6 II. State Farm contends : (1) the Automobile Policy contains a valid waiver of inter

policy stacking of underinsured motorist benefits ; ( 2) alternatively, Corey cannot recover from the Automobile Policy because the household

- vehicle exclusion applies ; and (3) assuming Corey can re cover from the Automobile Policy, it is limited to $50,000 per the
coordination

- of

- benefits provision. The Donovans respond : (1) any inter

- policy stacking waiver is invalid, (2) the household

- vehicle exclusion cannot function as a de facto waiver of stacked coverage, and (3) the lack of a valid waiver renders the coordination

of

- benefits provision inapplicable.
W e certified the following three questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
1. Is a named insured’s signing of the waiver form set out at 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1738(d) sufficient to waive inter

- policy stacking of underinsured motorist benefits under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law , where the policy insures more t han one vehicle at the time the form is signed? 2. If the answer to Question 1 is no, is a household [

- ] vehicle exclusion contained in a policy in which the named insured did not validly waive inter

- policy stacking enforceable to bar a claim made by a resident relative who is injured while occupying a vehicle owned by him and not insured under the policy under which the claim is made? 3. If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are no, is the coordination

- of

- benefits provision in the Automobile Policy nonetheless appli cable, such that it limits Corey Donovan’s recovery of underinsured motorist benefits under the policy to $50,000, or does the lack of a valid waiver of inter

- policy stacking render that provision inapplicable? Pet. for Certification at 12

– 13. On the firs t question, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held no . It explained that the § 1738(d) waiver provision’s use of the singular in the phrase “under the policy”

mean s that the waiver is limited to intra

- policy stacking in multiple

- vehicle policies , such7

as the Automobile P olicy

. Donovan , 256 A. 3d at 1157; see also Craley v. State Farm
Fire & Cas

. Co. , 895 A. 2 d 530 , 542 n.18 (Pa. 2006)

. In short, the plain language of the waiver appears , at least in the context of multiple

- vehicle plans, to disclaim only stacking the coverage of the vehicles covered “under the policy.” See 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1738(d). Since the waiver does not mention other policies, it does not provide notice to insu red s that they are also waiving inter

- policy stacking. 1
On the second question, the Court again held in the negative. It concluded that the household

- vehicle exclusion is unenforceable here because , when there is no valid § 1738(d) inter

- policy stacking waiver , another contract provision can not function as a de facto wa i ver . Donovan , 256 A. 3d at 1160 (citing Gallagher , 201 A. 2 d 131 (holding that the household

- vehicle exclusion was unenforceable when there was no waiver of inter

pol icy stacking) )

. And finally on the third question, the Court held the coordination

- of

benefits provision was not a partial waiver of inter

- policy stacking for the same reasons

. Id. at 1162

. As a Court sitting in diversity, we must follow Pennsylvania substantive law as interpreted by its Supreme Court. Crystallex Int ’ l Corp. v. Petróleos de Venez

. , S.A. , 879 F.3d 79, 84 (3d Cir. 2018)

. This means if that Court has addressed a substantive legal question of state law , we apply its holding. Here, the opinion it issued to answer our certified questions governs . The Automobile Policy did not contain a valid waiver of inter

- policy stacking

. And n either the household

- vehicle exclusion nor the coordination

1 The analysis is different for single

- vehicle plans. In th at context, stacking must refer to inter

- policy stacking “because there [can] be no intra

- policy stacking with only one vehicle on ‘the policy.’” Craley , 895 A. 2 d at 542

.8

of

- benefits pro vision can function as a de facto waiver of inter

- policy stacking for underinsured motorist coverage. Accordingly, Corey is entitled to a payment up to the Automotive Policy’s coverage limit of $100,000.

* * * * * We thus affirm the judgment of the Distr ict Court.