On June 4, 2018, in Allstate v. Archer, et al., 1:17-cv-331 (WDPA, Erie), The Honorable Mark R. Hornak of the Untied States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, declined jurisdiction on the issues of whether a new UIM stacking waiver was required when the insured went from a two vehicle policy to a three vehicle policy.
When the stacking waiver was signed, only two vehicles were on the Allstate Policy. The third vehicle was added prior to the subject loss by way of amended declarations. However, a new stacking waiver was not obtained. The District Court noted that Jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act (42 Pa. C.S.A. sec. 7541) was discretionary, not mandatory. The Court examined eight criteria set forth by the Third Circuit in Reifer v. Westport, 731 F. 3d 129, 146-46 (3d Cir. 2014) to be considered by a court in determining whether to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act and focused on: the likelihood the declaration will resolved the uncertainty, the public interest, restraint when the same issue is pending in state court, and to prevent a race for res judicata among jurisdictions. The Court noted the state law on this issue of stacking waivers when vehicles are added was unsettled and that the public interest was not better served by a Federal Court decision. Moreover, it held that the State Courts had more familiarity and interest in applying its insurance regulations, and were regularly addressing novel scenarios as the issues developed, and pointed in support of these contentions to the Sackett trilogy of cases, Bumberger v. Peerless, 93 A. 3d 872 (Pa. Super 2014)[requiring a new stacking waiver when after acquired vehicle is added by endorsement], and their progeny to establish the unsettled nature of the law.
Accordingly, the District Court noted that it should step back from addressing an unsettled question of state law and declined jurisdiction dismissing the matter.
