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 Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on their bad faith claim.
The case arose from a motorcycle accident in which the Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and recovered against the tortfeasor. The Plaintiff then pursued a UIM claim against Esurance. Esurance denied the claim, asserting that the Plaintiff did not select and pay for UIM benefits when he first obtained the policy and failed to add UIM coverage on a subsequent renewal.
The Plaintiff contended that Esurance’s UIM rejection form was defective and failed to comply with the MVFRL because the language required by the statute was not printed in a prominent font or location in the policy. Thus, the Plaintiff argued the rejection form was void and UIM benefits were owed in an amount equal to the bodily injury liability coverage provided by the policy. Plaintiff further claimed the Esurance renewal forms improperly omitted a required reminder notice advising that the policy did not provide UIM coverage. Plaintiff argued that this omission required Esurance to provide UIM coverage.
Esurance responded by asserting that its UIM rejection form complied with Pennsylvania law and Plaintiff validly rejected UIM coverage and cannot reform the policy to provide the disputed coverage. Esurance acknowledged that its renewal form failed to contain language required by the MVFRL to inform policyholders that UIM is not included, however, this defect did not entitle the Plaintiff to UIM coverage. Esurance pointed out that the Pennsylvania legislature did not provide any remedy for such an omission.
Esurance’s motion sought judgment in its favor on Plaintiff’s bad faith claim, arguing that it acted reasonably and in good faith given the affirmative rejection by Plaintiff of UIM protection.
The court ruled in favor of Esurance and granted summary judgment, finding the carrier had an objectively reasonable basis for denying coverage due to Plaintiff’s valid rejection of UIM benefits.
Questions regarding this matter can be directed to Ted Winicov.
