Source: https://www.yourerielawyers.com/document-library/insurance-claims-library/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:56:30+00:00

Document:
Insurance Claims Library | Purchase, George & Murphey, P.C.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that insurers may deny uninsured motorist benefits when insured fails to notify law enforcement of accident involving phantom vehicle within 30 days of accident in State Farm v. Foster, even without showing of prejudice.
Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas issues opinion which correctly determines that insurance companies who wrongly decide not to pay medical bills for their insureds must reimburse the attorney fees incurred by an insured or provider who successfully challenges their refusal to pay medical benefits owed under the policy.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that 30-Day Phantom Vehicle Reporting Requirement of the MVFRL does not relieve insurance company of obligation to provide uninsured motorist coverage, absent proof of prejudice to the insurance carrier.
Prudential loses effort to deny underinsured motorist benefits to their own insured in case where their insured was operating a rental truck and Prudential argued that their insureds lose coverage when they get in a truck that weighs more than one ton.
In Dixon v. Geico, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recognized an important limit on the scope of the regularly used auto exclusion found in typical Pennsylvania insurance policies that provide uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage. In circumstances in which an employed mechanic was driving his employer’s vehicle for purposes of delivering it (either incidental to or following repair), the Court found that it would be possible for a jury to conclude that such vehicle was not a vehicle “furnished for the regular use” of the employee.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided to accept a case that may narrow the reach of the household exclusion in Underinsured Motorist and Uninsured Motorist car insurance policies. In GEICO v. Ayers, the Court will determine whether the household vehicle exclusion is enforceable in circumstances in which the same insurance company insures both vehicles. The case has the potential to limit the application of the Court’s previous ruling in Erie Insurance v. Baker to those circumstances in which different insurers write the policies at issue.
In Erie Insurance v. Baker, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court upheld the validity of the so-called “household exclusion” in the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage portion of a Pennsylvania auto insurance policy. The household exclusion applies to deny UM/UIM coverage to people who are injured while occupying another vehicle owned by the insured (or a resident relative) but that is not insured on the same policy. The decision in Erie v. Baker definitively resolves the question of whether the household exclusion is enforceable under circumstances where the vehicles involved are insured by different carriers. Still unresolved (but working its way through the appellate system) is the question of whether the household exclusion is enforceable when the UM/UIM coverage at issue is provided by the same insurer, albeit via different policies.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has issued an opinion in Sackett v. Nationwide Insurance (Sackett III) that summarizes this case’s lengthy appellate history and confirms the rules that now apply in order for an insurance company to deny its insured the benefit of “stacked” benefits under the underinsured motorist and uninsured motorist portions of the policy.
These materials were provided to participants at a seminar given by Eric Purchase on April 1, 1998. The seminar was directed at insurance professionals, including claims adjustors and defense lawyers. The materials were intended to update attendees on the state of the law relating to first party auto insurance benefits.
In Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hymes, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County held that a motorcyclist injured when struck from the rear was not entitled to UIM benefits from his own auto insurance policy due to the household exclusion in his own auto policy.
A Purchase, George and Murphey, P.C. client recently won a substantial battle in a bad faith insurance case against ACIC for its handling of her Uninsured Motorist Claim. The court found ACIC in bad faith for misrepresenting UM policy limits; for refusing to arbitrate (despite policy language requiring arbitration); for misleading their insured about their intent to file an appeal of the arbitration award; for low balling; for delay; and for seeking release of bad faith claims as condition of payment of UIM benefits.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.