Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Hymes
29 A.3d 1169
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- On April 25, 2009, Jacob Hymes, while operating a 2005 Harley Davidson, collided with a 2001 Chevrolet Malibu driven by Robert Meyer, with Meyer at fault.
- Meyer’s liability limits were insufficient to fully compensate Jacob for his injuries.
- Jacob did not elect underinsured motorist coverage on his GEICO policy and sought UIM coverage under his parents’ Allstate policy.
- Allstate denied the claim, relying on the policy’s household exclusion from UIM coverage.
- The trial court granted Allstate’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling the exclusion barred UIM coverage.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the policy’s household exclusion barred UIM coverage for Jacob under these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the household exclusion bar UIM coverage here? | Hymes argues Jacob was injured after being ejected, not while on the motorcycle. | Allstate argues injuries were caused by the accident while Jacob was on the motorcycle, so exclusion applies. | Yes; exclusion bars UIM recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Genaeya Corp. v. Harco Nat. Ins. Co., 991 A.2d 342 (Pa. Super. 2010) (interpreting insurance contracts; contract language governs)
- Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Ayers, 955 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Super. 2008) (plain meaning required for clear policy language)
- Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Colbert, 572 Pa. 82 (2002) (give plain meaning unless public policy dictates otherwise)
- Wall Rose Mut. Ins. Co. v. Manross, 939 A.2d 958 (Pa. Super. 2007) (cannot rewrite clear policy language)
- 401 Fourth St., Inc. v. Investors Insurance Group, 583 Pa. 445 (2005) (look to entire provision to ascertain intent)
- Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. English, 541 Pa. 424 (1995) (Declaratory Judgments Act applied to interpret insurance contracts)