Amica Mutual Insurance v. Fogel
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18623
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Amica issued a New Jersey automobile policy to Fogels; they relocated to Pennsylvania in Aug 2008.
- Fogels informed Amica of relocation; Amica indicated policy would be rewritten as Pennsylvania policy and began Pennsylvania billing.
- Accident occurred in Pennsylvania in Oct 2008; at that time policy remained New Jersey in effect and not rewritten.
- Fogels sought stacked UIM benefits under Pennsylvania law; Amica maintained New Jersey anti-stacking rule applied.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Amica on choice-of-law; Fogels removed, transferred to Pennsylvania, and appealed.
- Court held New Jersey choice-of-law rules apply and Pennsylvania law governs UIM stacking; bad-faith claim analyzed under Pennsylvania law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law applies which state’s substantive law? | Fogels (via MacVicar) argue Pennsylvania law governs. | Amica argues New Jersey law governs. | Pennsylvania law governs (after New Jersey framework analysis). |
| Whether Pennsylvania or New Jersey law controls UIM stacking and offsets? | Pennsylvania stacking rule applies; offsets barred in PA. | NJ policy prohibits stacking; NJ offsets permitted. | PA law applies; Fogels entitled to stacked UIM benefits. |
| Whether Amica acted in bad faith under Pennsylvania law? | Amica lacked reasonable basis; denied claim improperly. | Amica had reasonable basis under choice of law; acted in good faith. | Summary judgment for Amica on bad-faith counterclaim affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (established application of forum law in choice-of-law rules)
- Hammersmith v. TIG Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2007) (apply forum's substantive law in diversity cases)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (transferee court applies transferor state's law)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (1990) (Van Dusen rule applies to sua sponte transfers)
- Parker v. State Farm Ins. Co., 543 F. Supp. 806 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (foreseeability of risk shifting supports law of moved state)
- Simmons v. Gilbert Spruance Co., 84 N.J. 28, 417 A.2d 488 (N.J. 1980) (most significant relationship and governmental interest framework)
- Gilbert Spruance Co. v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ins. Co., 134 N.J. 96, 629 A.2d 885 (N.J. 1993) (Restatement § 188/§ 193 framework for casualty-insurance)
- MacVicar v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 704 A.2d 1343 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1998) (Pennsylvania law governs stacking where risk shifted to PA)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Davis, 490 F.2d 536 (3d Cir. 1974) (Pennsylvania interest in UIM stacking policies)
- Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1960s-) (sections 6, 188, 193 guide choice-of-law for insurance)