Court Opinion

ID: 9636213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:19:51.178321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:42.821866
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY
GANTMAN, J.:
¶ 1 With all due respect, I disagree with the majority’s disposition in this case. Instead, I concur in the dissenting opinion of my esteemed colleague Judge Ford Elliott that the facts of this case do not implicate “stacking” as the legislature has defined the concept. I see this case as a straightforward contract case in which the issue is whether Generette is entitled to the UIM benefits she paid for under the Donegal policy. I further agree with the dissent that Generette is effectively being denied the benefit of her bargain, which renders virtually hollow her specific purchase of UIM benefits. Generette was injured in an automobile accident and was not compensated to the full extent of her injuries. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I think she should be entitled to UIM benefits under the Donegal policy. Accordingly, I dissent.