In the recent case of Erie Insurance v. Mione, No. 2019-CV-2395 (C.P. Lehigh Co. June 26, 2020); Judge Michele Varrichio granted summary judgment in favor of Erie and denied Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff Erie sought a declaration that Defendants were not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits (“UIM”) under two Erie policies in the Mione’s household. The trial court agreed.
Defendant Mione was in a motor vehicle accident on July 21, 2018 while operating a motorcycle insured by a Progressive policy. Mione had rejected UIM coverage benefits on that Progressive motorcycle policy. He recovered from the tortfeasor. Mione then sought UIM benefits under the two Erie automobile policies in his household that had stacking of the UIM coverage. Erie had a household exclusion in their policies and argued the Miones were not entitled to UIM benefits.
Erie argued that Gallagher v. GEICO Indemn. Co., 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019) was inapplicable in the instant case. In Gallagher, the Supreme Court ended the household exclusion under a scenario where the Plaintiffs had paid for stacked coverage on both motorcycle and automobile policies in his household. Rather, Erie contended that the case was controlled by Eichelman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 1006 (Pa. 1999) in which Plaintiff did not pay for UIM coverage under his motorcycle policy. In Eichelman, the Supreme Court held that the household exclusion precluded the claimant from recovering UIM benefits under household policies issued to other family members, despite the stacked coverage on those other policies. The Lehigh County Court held that the Miones were precluded from recovering UIM benefits under the Erie policies because they did not purchase stacked benefits on the Progressive motorcycle policy. The Court held that because there were no stacked benefits on the motorcycle policy, there was nothing on which to stack the Erie policies. The Court determined that the Miones should be held to their choice of not purchasing stacked benefits on the motorcycle policy. The Court further held that Gallagher was factually distinct, and therefore Eichelman controlled and that the unambiguous language in the Erie policy must be given its plain meaning.
Questions regarding this case can be directed to Jennifer Stauffer, Esquire.
