In Venturato v. State Farm, No. 4:18-CV 1243 (M.D. 2018), the court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, holding inter-policy stacking of underinsured motorist benefits coverage may be waived and the waiver language was valid.
Plaintiff-husband and his wife maintained individual automobile policies with State Farm with each spouse being named as an insured on the other’s policy. Plaintiff-husband elected $100,000 in underinsured motorist benefits and his wife had elected coverage of $15,000. Plaintiff was involved in an accident while operating his wife’s vehicle. Progressive tendered third party liability limits of $15,000 and Plaintiff husband made a claim for UIM benefits under his wife’s policy. He then made a separate claim under his own policy. Defendant State Farm rejected the second claim as Plaintiff-husband had signed a stacking waiver form.
Plaintiff-husband filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that his stacking waiver form was invalid and that in the alternative he should be paid the underinsured motorist benefits he elected as opposed to his wife. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming Plaintiff did not set forth a valid claim upon which relief may be granted. The court granted Defendant’s Motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Court relied on Craley v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 815 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2006), which recognized the concept of inter-policy stacking when a single insurance company issued multiple policies covering separate vehicles in a household. In Craley, the plaintiff signed a stacking waiver and the court determined that he had knowledge of the waiver of inter-policy stacking because there was no possibility of intra-policy stacking with only the plaintiff’s vehicle on his policy. In the case at bar, the Court determined that Plaintiff had sufficient notice of his stacking waiver, and that his waiver of stacking was knowing.
In addition, the Court held that Plaintiff was correctly paid underinsured motorist benefits under his wife’s policy rather than his own because he was operating her vehicle at the time of the accident. Since Plaintiff was an insured on multiple policies, it was determined that payment was properly made under the policy covering the vehicle occupied by the injured person. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1733 (a)(1).
Questions regarding this Opinion can be directed to Jennifer Stauffer, Esquire.
