Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases
Personal Injury
Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
Workers' Compensation
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
Attorney
Staff
Blog Category:

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

    5/23/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    New Case Law on stacking of uninsurance and underinsurance by Pennsylvania employees

    On May 14, 2008 the trial court in Lackawanna County granted the Motion for Summary Judgment of Donegal Mutual Insurance Company in Reeser v. Donegal.  In Reeser the insureds injured were employees of the employer who insured the vehicle.  There was a 4 car policy that had only 35K UM and UIM coverage and no stacking.  However, the company could not produce the forms requesting lower limits or rejecting stacking so the court held as a matter of law that there was 500K in UM and UIM coverage with stacking. 

    However, the trial court also held that since there was no policy language entitling a class two insured to stack underinsured motorist coverage, that only a class one insured could stack.  In this case, only the individual employer and those family members who resided with the employer could stack as class one insureds but the employees who were injured as occupants of the insured vehicles could not.  The insureds attempted to argue that since Section 1738 does not distinguish between classes that there was no longer a distinction between class one and class two insureds.  The trial court relies upon Section 1702 of the MVFRL and the line of cases from the 1980s starting with Utica Mutual to hold that there is still a class one and class two distinction, absent a policy provision.

    This is a very technical case invovling very specific facts and insurance policy language, or lack thereof.  However, it is ultimate proof that an attorney must look at every angle in determining the amounts of insurance coverage, etc.  Leave no stone unturned.


    Labels: automobile accident, automobile insurance case law Underinsurance uninsurance work injury


There are no comments.

Post a comment

Post a Comment to "New Case Law on stacking of uninsurance and underinsurance by Pennsylvania employees"

To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."

Username:*

Password:*

Register for an account

Message:

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

For security purposes, please enter the text in the graphic below: [hit F5 if you can not read the text]

Quick Contact

Name:

Phone:

Email:

(We do not share or sell your email)

Tell us more:


Carroll & Carroll, P.C.
100 Center Street
Athens, PA 18810
Phone: (570) 882-8683


Get Directions

Map / Directions


©2009 Carroll & Carroll, P.C., All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission
The Best in Website Design for Attorneys, Attorney Web Blogs That Work, Attorney Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services for Lawyers and Update Your Website Yourself
by Foster Web Marketing - The Best Attorney Website Design & Hosting Firm
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog