Court Opinion

ID: 9646466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:00:36.890933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:38.471558
License: Public Domain

JACOBS, President Judge,
concurring:
While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I believe that it is both unwise and unnecessary to invalidate the Commissioner’s sample form by holding that Exclusion (b) contravenes the policy behind the Uninsured Motorists Act per se.
*227Any attempt by the insurer to deny coverage completely, as here, must be considered in derogation of the statute’s purpose, which is to enable the innocent victim of an uninsured motorist’s negligence to recover those damages which he would have received had the uninsured driver maintained minimum liability insurance. Bankes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Pa.Super. 162, 168, 264 A.2d 197, 200 (1970). I believe, however, that Exclusion (b) may properly be used to divide the uninsured motorist coverage in two or more automobile insurance policies issued to members of the same family in order to prevent cumulation of coverage among insured automobiles, since the insured still gets the full protection required by the Act. It was so employed in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ealy, 221 Pa.Super. 138, 289 A.2d 113 (1972). See also Adelman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 255 Pa.Super. -, 386 A.2d 535 (1977).
I would, therefore, hold the exclusion invalid only as applied to the facts of this case.
VAN der VOORT, J., joins this concurring opinion.