Consumers Win Two Important Battles for Underinsured Motorist Benefits in recent PA Supreme Court and Federal Court Cases

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in April 2007 extended significant rights to consumers seeking underinsured motorist insurance benefits from their own policies when they have been injured by drivers who fail to carry enough car insurance.
In Sackett v. Nationwide a significant majority of the Supreme Court of PA decided that each time a new vehicle is added to the insurance coverage, the insurance carrier, in this case Nationwide, is required to obtain a new rejection form for stacking of benefits.
Stacking insurance coverage is available to consumers who insured more than one vehicle. For instance, if you have $100,000 of underinsured motorist coverage on two or more vehicles, the insurance company must obtain written confirmation that you do NOT want to "stack" that coverage in the event of an accident. So if you had two vehicles, each with $100,000 of coverage and did not affirmatively "reject" that coverage in writing, your potential insurance coverage would be $200,000. While everyone considers costs in today's economic environment, consider the losses potentially incurred as a result of a tragic accident where you have ongoing medical bills and unreimbursed lost wages.
In Sackett, the insureds purchased a third vehicle. Even though they did not elect stacking coverage for their first two cars, the Court felt that each time a new car is purchased and insurance is obtained, the consumer in accordance with the language of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Statutes should be given the chance to reconsider the amount of coverage they could be receiving.
Consumers would be well served to periodically check their insurance coverage to determine what elections and rejections have been made. Dan Monahan is prepared to review your Auto Insurance Policies, at no cost and with no financial incentive in mind such as an insurance salesperson might have, at any time. Or Order His Book through this website: "The Consumer Guide to Pennsylvania's Confusing Auto Insurance Laws."

In another case of first impression, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was called upon to predict how the Pennsylvania Courts would interpret an issue of law that has yet to be decided by the high Courts of Pennsylvania. In Rosenthal v. State Farm the Federal Court predicted on the issue of statutes of limitations in underinsured motorist cases that the four (4) year statute would not begin to run until the injured driver settles his claim with or obtains an award from the underinsured driver.

The insurance company had argued that the statute of limitations would begin running on the accident date. The Court found that not only was such a result inconsistent with the language of the Pennsylvania Statutues but also could result in the filing of unnecessary lawsuits by plaintiffs who would be required to file actions merely to protect the statute of limitations even before the injured would know if they had a claim for underinsured motorist benefits.

Consumers should be forwarned, however, that waiting to consider any legal action is fraught with dangers and would be well advised to contact an experienced Trial Attorney to explore their legal rights and options.

Name:

Phone:

Email:

What is your question?

The Monahan Law Practice
300 North Pottstown Pike
Suite 210
Exton, PA 19341-2233

Phone: (610) 363-3888
Fax: (610) 363-2429