J-S34001-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE 

COMPANY

v.

JUANITA GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS ADMINSTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE 

OF ISAAC GREEN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 877 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered June 24, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s): 

2019-CV-1885-CV

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 17, 2022

Appellant, Juanita Green, appeals from the order entered in the Court 

of Common Pleas of Dauphin County granting summary judgment in favor of 

Appellee, Atlantic States Insurance Company (“Atlantic”) in this declaratory 

judgment action. Appellant challenges the trial court’s finding that the 

“household vehicle” exclusion clause in her policy with Atlantic is enforceable 

to preclude her from recovering underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”) 

benefits. After careful review, we affirm. 

On July 19, 2018, Isaac Green (“Green”) suffered fatal injuries when 

another driver negligently hit the motorcycle Green was operating. Green had 

insured the motorcycle under a policy of insurance issued by Progressive 
J-S34001-21

- 2 -

Insurance Company. Before the crash, Green had executed a valid rejection 

of UIM coverage under the Progressive policy.

1

Green and Appellant, his wife, also maintained a policy of automobile 

insurance with Atlantic providing for $100,000 per person in UIM coverage, 

stacked on three vehicles (the “Atlantic Policy”). Green’s motorcycle was not 

insured on this policy. The Atlantic Policy included a “household vehicle” 

exclusion precluding UIM coverage “for ‘bodily injury’ sustained:[] By you 

while ‘occupying’ or when struck by any motor vehicle you own or lease which 

is not insured for this coverage under this policy.” Trial Ct. Op., 7/26/21, at 2 

n.1. 

On March 18, 2019, Atlantic filed the underlying declaratory judgment 

action seeking a judicial determination of whether the “household vehicle” 

exclusion in the Atlantic Policy was enforceable to deny Appellant UIM benefits 

under the policy.2 On January 6, 2021, after the completion of discovery, 

Atlantic filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, averring that the “household 

vehicle” exclusion precluded coverage by its basic terms because, at the time 

____________________________________________

1 “UIM coverage is triggered when the tortfeasor’s liability coverage is not 

sufficient to cover the injuries incurred in an accident.” Generette v. Donegal 

Mut. Ins. Co., 957 A.2d 1180, 1189 (Pa. 2008). “Stacking” refers to the 

combination of insurance coverage of individual vehicles to increase the 

amount of total coverage available to an insured. Erie Ins. Exch. v. Petrie, 

242 A.3d 915, 917 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2020). 

2 After Atlantic filed this action, Appellant settled with the at-fault driver for 

the limits of the driver’s liability insurance coverage. 
J-S34001-21

- 3 -

of the crash, Green was operating a motor vehicle not insured on the Atlantic 

Policy.

On June 24, 2021, the trial court granted summary judgment in 

Atlantic’s favor, declaring that Atlantic had no obligation to provide UIM 

coverage to Appellant for Green’s death. Appellant timely filed a Notice of 

Appeal and both she and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises a single issue for our review:

Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err by failing to rule that the household

[vehicle] exclusion in [Atlantic’s] auto insurance policy issued to 

[] Appellant was enforceable when the Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court ruled that household [vehicle] exclusions are void and

unenforceable as violative of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle 

[Financial] Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1701 et. seq. [S]ee, 

Gallagher v. GEICO[ Indemn. Co.], 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019)?

Appellant’s Br. at 8.

When reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we view 

the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolve all 

doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the 

moving party. Kline v. Travelers Personal Security Ins. Co., 223 A.3d 

677, 685 (Pa. Super. 2019). We may reverse only if the court committed an 

error of law or abuse of discretion. Id.

In the instant case, in granting summary judgment in Atlantic’s favor, 

the trial court explained that “Erie Ins. Exch. v. Mione, [253 A.3d 754 (Pa. 

Super. 2021), appeal granted, 326 MAL 2021 (Pa. filed Nov. 30, 2021)] is 

dispositive and prohibits [Appellant] from obtaining the [UIM] benefits it seeks 
J-S34001-21

- 4 -

from [Atlantic].” Trial Ct. Or., 6/24/21, at 1. “In Mione, the Superior Court 

held that the household [vehicle] exclusion is not invalid, under facts 

substantively identical to those presented in this matter.” Trial Ct. Op., 

7/26/21, at 2.

Although Mione is crucial to our analysis, we begin with our Supreme 

Court’s recent decision in Gallagher v. GEICO Indemn. Co., 201 A.3d 131 

(Pa. 2019), which bears on the validity of “household vehicle” exclusions in 

automobile insurance policies in Pennsylvania. Gallagher suffered injuries in a 

motorcycle accident. At the time of the accident, he maintained two policies 

of insurance with GEICO – one for his motorcycle and one for his personal 

automobiles. Gallagher paid for stacked UIM coverage on both policies. GEICO 

paid Gallagher’s UIM claim on his motorcycle policy, but denied his UIM claim 

on his automobile policy, reasoning that the automobile policy’s “household 

vehicle” exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court granted summary 

judgment in GEICO’s favor in an ensuing declaratory judgment action, and we 

affirmed. 

On appeal, our Supreme Court concluded that the “household vehicle” 

exclusion was unenforceable under Section 1738 of the Pennsylvania Motor 

Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1738, because 

the exclusion impermissibly acted as a de facto waiver of stacked UIM 

coverage. Id. at 137-38. The Court determined the “household vehicle”

exclusion
J-S34001-21

- 5 -

is inconsistent with the unambiguous requirements [of] Section 

1738 of the MVFRL under the facts of this case insomuch as it acts 

as a de facto waiver of stacked UIM coverage provided for in the 

MVFRL, despite the indisputable reality that Gallagher did not sign 

the statutorily-prescribed UIM coverage waiver form. Instead,

Gallagher decided to purchase stacked UM/UIM coverage under 

both of his policies, and he paid GEICO premiums commensurate 

with that decision. He simply never chose to waive formally 

stacking as is plainly required by the MVFRL.

Id. at 138. 

In Mione, 253 A.3d at 760-63, this Court interpreted and applied the 

Gallagher decision to facts similar to those in the present appeal. Mione was 

operating a motorcycle when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

Mione insured the motorcycle with a policy from Progressive under which he

had rejected UIM coverage. Mione was a named insured on two additional 

automobile insurance policies issued by Erie Insurance under which Appellant

had paid for stacked UIM coverage. The motorcycle was not a covered vehicle 

on either Erie policy. Mione sought to recover UIM benefits under the Erie 

policies.

Erie filed a declaratory judgment action arguing that “household vehicle”

exclusions found in the Erie policies precluded Mione from recovering UIM 

benefits.3 The trial court entered judgment in Erie’s favor, reasoning that 

Mione had “rejected UIM benefits on his Progressive Motorcycle Policy, which 

means that there is no underlying policy to ‘stack’ the Erie Auto Policy benefits 

onto.” Id. at 758 (citing Trial Ct. Or., 6/26/20, at 2 n.2). 

____________________________________________

3 The “household vehicle” exclusions in Mione were substantially similar to 

the exclusion in the instant case. See Mione, 253 A.3d at 757 n.6.
J-S34001-21

- 6 -

This Court affirmed. We concluded that Gallagher does not invalidate 

“household vehicle” exclusions in all cases. Instead, a “household vehicle” 

exclusion is unenforceable only where it acts as a de facto waiver of stacked 

coverage in the absence of a valid rejection form. Id. at 765-66. Citing 

Eichelman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 1006, 1010 (Pa. 1998),

4 we 

held that “a clear and unambiguous household [vehicle] exclusion is 

enforceable where the insured was operating a vehicle at the time of the 

accident that was covered by a separate policy not providing the insured with 

[UIM] coverage because the insured had voluntarily, and validly, waived such 

coverage.” Mione, 253 A.3d at 768. Since Mione did not purchase UIM 

coverage on his motorcycle, he could not recover under the Erie policies. Id.

at 768.

In the instant case, the crux of Appellant’s argument on appeal is that 

the trial court erred in determining that Mione required it to find that the 

“household vehicle” exclusion in the Atlantic Policy barred Appellant’s UIM 

claim, given our Supreme Court’s decision in Gallagher. Appellant’s Br. at 

12-17. Appellant argues that Gallagher uniformly invalidated all “household 

vehicle” exclusions in Pennsylvania. Id. at 14-15.

____________________________________________

4

In Eichelman, 711 A.2d at 1010, the appellant had rejected UIM coverage

on the vehicle in which he suffered injuries. He sought to access UIM benefits 

under his parent’s automobile insurance policies as a “resident relative.” Our 

Supreme Court concluded that a “household vehicle” exclusion in the parent’s 

policies was enforceable to preclude the appellant from accessing UIM benefits 

under the policies because he had rejected UIM benefits on his own policy.
J-S34001-21

- 7 -

After careful review of the facts and the law as it currently stands, we 

must disagree with Appellant’s contention. We are bound by prior decisions of 

this Court unless and until they are overruled by an en banc panel or a higher 

court. See Erie Ins. Exch. v. Sutherland, 260 A.3d 115, 2021 WL 2827321 

at *11 (Pa. Super. filed July 7, 2021) (non-precedential decision applying 

Mione). Accordingly, we are constrained to agree with the trial court that 

Mione is dispositive. Mione is factually indistinguishable from the present 

case. In both cases the insured suffered injuries while operating a motorcycle 

on which he had validly rejected UIM coverage. Additionally, the insured 

maintained a policy of automobile insurance on which he had paid for stacked 

UIM coverage, the motorcycle was not a covered vehicle under the automobile 

insurance policy, and the automobile insurance policy included a “household 

vehicle” exclusion precluding coverage for injuries suffered while operating 

the motorcycle. We are, thus, bound by Mione’s conclusion that Gallagher

does not invalidate the “household vehicle” exclusion on the instant facts and, 

as a result, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Atlantic’s 

favor. 

Order affirmed. 
J-S34001-21

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/17/2022