Federal Court Weighs in on Ride Share UM/UIM Coverage
In a recent opinion, the Federal Court for the Eastern District of PA ruled in favor of a Lyft driver, resolving a dispute over uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in Ahtasham v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01673-GJP (E.D. Pa. Pappert, J.) The case...
More Caselaw on Who is a “Resident Relative”
In Barna v. Progressive Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Justice Mehalchick) granted summary judgment for Defendant State Farm in a motor...
Supreme Court Upholds the Regular Use Exclusion
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No 77, MAP 2022 (Pa. Jan. 29, 2024) (Maj. Op. by Donahue, J.) (Concurring Op. by Wecht, J.) upheld the validity of the Regular Use Exclusion and ruled that, as presented in this...
Eastern District Weighs In On Service
In London-Walker v. Walgreens Family of Cos., No. 23-CV-2868 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2023), Judge Kenney from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether timely service of a Writ of Summons on the third-party administrator representative for...
Third Circuit Confirms There Is No Requirement For A New Sec. 1734 Form Requesting Lower UM/UIM Limits When A Vehicle Is Added To An Existing Policy
In Geist v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 F.4th 861 (3rd Cir. Sept. 29, 2022, Randel, C.J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a selection of lower UIM limits form under Section 1734 was required when an additional vehicle...
Expert Testimony Not Required In Cases Where Causation Is “Obvious”
The Middle District of Pennsylvania recently held in Bixler v. Lamendola (Civil Action 3:20-CV-1819, M.D. Pa., July 5, 2022) that expert medical testimony was not required to prove the causal relationship between the trauma sustained and an alleged...
Household Exclusion Enforceable When Insured Rejects Coverage on Own Vehicle
In a non precedential opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Colebank, 1244 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. April 20, 2022) held that a household exclusion provision in an insurance policy was enforceable against a...
Superior Court Says “Resident” Did Not Require Physical Presence
In the non-precedential case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Montesano, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that plaintiff met the definition of a "resident" under an auto policy, and was covered for underinsured motorist benefits, even though she...
Eastern District Interprets Conflicting Limited Tort Issues
In the case of Devoue v. American Sitework, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-06003 (E.D. Pa. March 4, 2022, Marston, J.), the Eastern District Court held that a Pennsylvania vehicle owner plaintiff, who otherwise would be deemed limited tort for his failure to...
Pennsylvania Superior Court Invalidates the Regular Use Exclusion
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 1443 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. October 22, 2021), affirmed a Northampton County Trial Court's decision finding the regular use exclusion to be invalid and that the exclusion...
Forum Selection Clause Held To Be Unambiguous
In their recent decision in the case of Van Divner v. Sweger, No. 1129 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. June 24, 2021), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held a UIM forum selection clause to be unambiguous and upheld transfer of that action to another...
UIM Rejection Forms Held to be Valid
In Keeler v. Esurance Insurance Services, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00271 (W.D. Pa. July 12, 2021 Kelly, M.J.), Federal Western District Magistrate Judge Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the court grant Esurance's...