In King v. US Xpress Inc., et al, No 16-2623 (3d Cir. July 11, 2018) Plaintiff was involved in an accident while driving for his employer and sought uninsured motorist benefits from his employer’s commercial insurance policy. However, the employer waived UM benefits and the waiver complied with the motor vehicle financial responsibility law. Therefore, the Court enforced the waiver and denied UM coverage benefits.
Plaintiff King was driving for Defendant US Xpress, Inc. which was insured by Defendant Mountain Lake Risk Retention. Plaintiff was struck by a phantom vehicle and made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Defendant Mountain Lake denied the claim on the basis that Defendant US Xpress signed a waiver rejecting uninsured motorist benefits. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming breach of contract and bad faith, alleging that the waiver did not comply with 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1731.
The Court held that the waiver was valid. The court noted that while a written waiver must “specifically comply” with the statutorily provided forms, a verbatim reproduction of the language of the rejection form is only required for a rental or leased vehicle. The form specifically complies if it “differs from the statutory form in an inconsequential manner” or “contains de minimus deviations from the statutory rejection form.” Ford v. Am. States Ins. Co., 154 A.3d. 237, 245-46 (Pa. 2017). The court noted that US Xpress’ signed waiver included the required statutory language plus additional language that adapted the statutory language to the commercial setting, but did “not limit the scope of coverage, create ambiguity or contravene the parties’ understanding of the intended coverage.” King, at 5. The Court held that since the additional language tailored the waiver to the commercial setting, and that it was unlikely that the Pennsylvania courts would strike down what appeared to be a necessary clarification. Id.
Please contact Jennifer Stauffer with any questions or to discuss.
