Court Opinion

ID: 9731957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:03:03.309953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:22.207718
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The majority’s decision to nullify a clear and unambiguous limitation on the coverage provided by a policy of automobile insurance issued by Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Donegal) is not warranted by the decided cases or by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1701 to 1798.4 (MVFRL) and, in my judgment, establishes bad law.
Timothy Lambert died of injuries received while riding as a passenger in a vehicle which he owned but which was being driven by Darrell Dean McClure. The vehicle was insured under a policy of automobile insurance which had been issued by Donegal. Letters of administration were issued to Wendy Lambert in the estate of her deceased brother, and she filed an action for declaratory judgment to *266determine the limits of Donegal’s liability in providing coverage to McClure, the driver of the decedent’s car.
The policy was written to provide coverage up to one hundred thousand ($100,000.00) dollars per accident. This coverage, however, was subject to the following limitation:
We do not provide liability coverage for any person for “bodily injury” to you or any “family member” to the extent that the limits of liability for this coverage exceed the limits of liability required by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law of 1984.
In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Donegal contended that its limit of liability for the death of its insured was fifteen thousand ($16,000.00) dollars, the amount required by MVFRL. The plaintiff argued, however, that the limiting language was null and void because it was contrary to the provisions of MVFRL and violated public policy. The trial court held the policy limitation void because the decedent had not had a knowing opportunity to purchase coverage for one hundred thousand ($100,000.00) dollars free of such limitation and held that the policy limitation, therefore, was unenforceable. The majority agrees and affirms. I disagree and dissent.
Pennsylvania courts have long recognized and enforced policy provisions which limit or exclude liability coverage for injuries to the named insured or members of the named insured’s family. See: Pennsylvania Manufacturers Assoc. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Ins. Co., 426 Pa. 453, 233 A.2d 548 (1967); Great American Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co., 412 Pa. 538, 194 A.2d 903 (1963) (exclusion in motor vehicle policy); Puller v. Puller, 380 Pa. 219, 110 A.2d 175 (1955) (same). See also: Neil v. Allstate Insurance Co., 379 Pa.Super. 299, 549 A.2d 1304 (1988), allocatur denied, 522 Pa. 578, 559 A.2d 38 (1989) (exclusion in homeowner’s policy); Paiano v. Home Insurance Co., 253 Pa.Super. 519, 385 A.2d 460 (1978); Grott v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 646 F.Supp. 973 (E.D.Pa.1986). Such provisions serve the important purpose of discouraging collusive claims. Puller v. Puller, *267supra 380 Pa. at 223, 110 A.2d at 177-178; Neil v. Allstate Insurance Co., supra, 379 Pa.Super. at 307, 549 A.2d at 1308. They do not violate public policy.
“It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in [declaring that policy to be against public policy].”
Neil v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 379 Pa.Superior Ct. at 303, 549 A.2d at 1305, quoting Mamlin v. Genoe, 340 Pa. 320, 325, 17 A.2d 407, 409 (1941).
When the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, a court is required to give effect thereto. Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co., supra; Neil v. Allstate Insurance Co., supra. In such cases, it is not a defense that the insured failed to read or understand the language of the policy. Standard Venetian Blind Company v. American Empire Insurance Co., 503 Pa. 300, 469 A.2d 563 (1983). A court should not rewrite or ignore the clear terms of an insurance agreement in order to expand coverage beyond that provided in the policy. Guardian Life Insurance Co. v. Zerance, 505 Pa. 345, 353, 479 A.2d 949, 953 (1984); Monti v. Rockwood Ins. Co., 303 Pa.Super. 473, 450 A.2d 24, 26 (1982); Adelman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 255 Pa.Super. 116, 386 A.2d 535 (1978). An insured will not be heard to complain that his reasonable expectations were frustrated by policy limitations which are clear and unambiguous. Neil v. Allstate Insurance Co., supra, 379 Pa.Superior Ct. at 311, 549 A.2d at 1309.
Provisions limiting liability with respect to claims made by the named insured or members of his family are not prohibited by any provision of MVFRL. The requirement that an insurer make available for purchase a coverage for bodily injury liability in an amount up to at least one hundred thousand ($100,000.00) dollars cannot be construed as preventing the limitation imposed by the Donegal policy with respect to claims made by the named insured or *268members of his family. The requirements imposed by MVFRL should not be expanded “under the pretext of pursuing [the statute’s] spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). See also: Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., 370 Pa.Super. 51, 62, 535 A.2d 1145, 1151 (1988) (en banc), allocatur denied, 520 Pa. 590, 551 A.2d 216 (1989). One of the statute’s objectives was to reduce the escalating costs of motor vehicle insurance. Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., supra, 370 Pa.Superior Ct. at 63, 535 A.2d at 1152. An unwarranted expansion by the courts of statutory duties imposed upon insurers will serve only to increase the cost of insurance and thereby undermine the statute’s principal objective. Coverage for liability of up to one hundred thousand ($100,000.00) dollars was, in fact, purchased by the insured in this case, and coverage in the same amount for claims by the insured or members of his family was available for purchase.
The majority holds that the endorsement imposing the limitation is void because it was not called to the attention of the named insured with instructions that it could be removed by the payment of an additional premium. I am unable to accept this reasoning. In the first place, I find no such requirement in the statute. The majority relies upon the requirement of the statute that an insured be advised that coverage in excess of that required by MVFRL be made available for purchase by payment of an additional premium. In the instant case, however, it is clear that the insured was aware that excess coverage was available. He was aware of it because, in fact, he purchased such additional coverage. The statute contains no mandate that additional notice be given of the limitation which pertained to liability coverage for bodily injury sustained by the named insured or members of his family.
The limitation in this case was expressed by policy language which was clear and unambiguous, and the insured, under all the cases, had an obligation to read it. This is particularly so in the instant case. Here, the insured’s attention was specifically directed by language on the Dec*269laration page to Endorsement PP. 0151. This is the special limitation which the majority voids because, it contends, the insured was not made aware that it could be erased by an additional premium.
The majority also errs, in my judgment, when it assumes that, as a matter of law, the insured was unaware of the limitation on coverage or that it could be removed by the payment of an additional premium. My review of the complaint fails to reveal any averment that the insured was not aware that liability coverage of up to one hundred thousand ($100,000.00) dollars could also be purchased for claims made by him or members of his family. Indeed, the estate’s action was not based upon an absence of such knowledge. The complaint averred only that the clause violated public policy. Contrary to the majority, I cannot infer a lack of such knowledge solely from the general policy of Donegal to insert a limitation on liability for claims by the named insured or members of his family in the absence of contrary instructions from the insured.
In my judgment, the insured was chargeable with notice of the limitations upon Donegal’s liability which were clearly and unambiguously stated in the policy which he purchased. The limitation here being reviewed did not violate public policy or any provisions of MVFRL. Therefore, I would hold, consistently with the language of the policy, that Donegal’s limit of liability for the death of its insured was fifteen thousand ($15,000.00) dollars. Because the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.