J-A14027-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CONNOR A. GOSSETT

v.

ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND 

STEWARTS FIBER & CABLE, INC.

APPEAL OF: ERIE INSURANCE 

EXHANGE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1651 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered, October 23, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County,

Civil Division at No(s): 10057-2018.

BEFORE: OTT, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JULY 15, 2019

Erie Insurance Exchange appeals from an order of the trial court 

granting Plaintiff Connor A. Gossett’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

The trial court simultaneously denied Erie’s cross-motion for judgment in its 

favor. After review, we affirm. 

A negligent, underinsured, third-party driver struck a traffic-control 

signal and pinned Mr. Gossett against his work truck. Mr. Gossett, who was 

outside installing cable for his employer at the time, was severely injured in 

the accident. The third-party driver’s insurance was insufficient to 

compensate Mr. Gossett for all of his injuries. Mr. Gossett therefore sought 

to collect underinsured motorist benefits from Erie under the terms of his 

employer’s insurance policy. 
J-A14027-19

- 2 -

Erie disputed the amount of UIM coverage available, so Mr. Gossett filed 

a declaratory judgment action against it. At the close of the pleadings, both 

parties sought judgment as a matter of law and agreed that no factual issues 

were in dispute. At issue was whether the insurance policy between Mr. 

Gossett’s employer and Erie provided first-party uninsured/underinsured 

(UM/UIM) coverage in an amount lesser than the third-party coverage. 

Specifically, the parties disputed whether a form attached to the policy, which

was signed by Mr. Gossett’s employer but contained blank lines for the amount 

of reduced UM/UIM coverage, could bind the insured (and Mr. Gossett) to a 

lesser amount of UIM coverage. 

After studying the pleadings, the contract, various forms accompanying 

it, and the law, the trial court concluded that no such contractual limitation on 

UM/UIM coverage had occurred. The court thus awarded declaratory 

judgment on the pleadings in favor of Mr. Gossett, and this appeal followed.

When reviewing a grant or denial of judgment on the pleadings, our 

scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo. Altoona 

Regional Health System v. Schutt, 100 A.3d 260, 265 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

Moreover, “every material and relevant fact well-pleaded and every inference 

fairly deducible therefrom are to be taken as true.” Baker v. Rangos, 324 

A.2d 498, 508 (Pa. Super. 1974).

We may affirm a judgment on the pleadings only if:

there are no disputed issues of fact, and the moving party 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining 

if there is a dispute as to facts, the court must confine its 
J-A14027-19

- 3 -

consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. On 

appeal, we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the 

complaint . . . . Only when the moving party’s case is clear 

and free from doubt such that a trial would prove fruitless 

will an appellate court affirm a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings.

Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 170 A.3d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2017).

The Honorable James J. Ross, writing for the Court of Common Pleas of 

Beaver County, authored a very extensive, well-reasoned opinion supporting 

his decision to grant judgment on the pleadings to Mr. Gossett. Following our 

review of his opinion, the record, and the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, 

we agree with the trial court. Because it thoroughly addresses the matters 

raised on appeal, we adopt, as our own, the trial court’s opinion dated October 

23, 2018 (finding as a matter of law that the Erie policy Mr. Gossett’s employer 

purchased did not provide for first-party, UM/UIM coverage in an amount 

lesser than the third-party, bodily injury coverage contained in the policy, 

because the alleged application for lesser coverage did not meet the 

requirements of section 1734 of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial 

Responsibility Law). 

We direct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Ross’s opinion to this 

Memorandum in the event of further proceedings.

Order affirmed.
J-A14027-19

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/15/2019