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

    6/9/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    New Federal case law on what is required in rejecting UIM insurance coverage

    On Friday June 6, 2008 the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found in favor of the insurance company in a sign down case in The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Poslusney.  In this case the insureds executed a sign down in 1990 from 100K in BI splits limits to 50K in UM and UIM split coverage nonstacked.  The forms were with AEtna.  Then, in 1994 they increased their liability to $305K with The Standard Fire Insurance Company and no new sign downs were executed.  They were injured in a car accident in 2004 and made bodily injury claims.

    First, the District Court holds that their was no need for a new sign down in 1994 because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion on Blood v. Old Guard Ins. Co., 934 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2007) applies to an increase of liability as opposed to a decrease of liability as in Blood, as long as their is a sign down executed.  Second, the court holds that the difference in the 2 companies AEtna v. Standard does not require a new sign down because they are under the same set of inter-related companies of AEtna, Travelers and Standard.  The court also finds that some other changes do not make a new policy in 1994 but importantly does not discuss the effect of the legislature enactment of 40 P.S. Section 991.2001.  In Frankiewicz v. Motorists in 2006 the trial court in Erie County held that similar changes to a policy created a new policy and required a new rejection of stacking form.


    Labels: automobile accident automobile insurance case law federal court Underinsurance


There are no comments.

Post a comment

Post a Comment to "New Federal case law on what is required in rejecting UIM insurance coverage"

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