Court Opinion

ID: 4194256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-08-08 20:12:39.810303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:57.236501
License: Public Domain

ORDER
 

  PER CURIAM
 

  AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by the Petitioner, are:
 

  (1) Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” violates Section 1738 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) where GEICO issued all household policies and unilaterally decided to issue two separate policies, when the insured desired stacking, elected stacking, paid ad
   
   *975
   
  ditional premiums for stacking and never knowingly waived stacking of underinsured motorist benefits?
 

  (2) Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” impermissibly narrows or conflicts with the statutory mandates of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and the evidence of record is that GEICO was fully aware of the risks of insuring a motorcycle in the same household as other family vehicles but unilaterally decided to write a separate motorcycle policy?