Bielec, J. v. American International Group, Inc.
336 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- This is a Pennsylvania Superior Court dissent by Judge Fitzgerald in an appeal concerning the validity of an insurer’s underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage rejection form under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1731(c) of the MVFRL.
- Plaintiff/insured declined UIM coverage via a form that reproduced the statutory waiver language but used a tick-box to indicate rejection; the signature and date were placed at the bottom of the page rather than immediately after the statutory language.
- The majority held the form invalid for lack of “specific compliance” because the signature was not placed proximate to the required statutory rejection text and certain selection boxes were left unticked.
- Judge Fitzgerald dissented, arguing the tick-box variation is a de minimis alteration that did not create ambiguity and that the insured’s signature at the bottom (following language confirming understanding) sufficed to show an informed rejection.
- The dissent relied on precedent allowing minor deviations from the statutory form and cases holding that rejection need not stand alone on a page nor be verbatim so long as the insured understood and declined coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the UIM rejection form specifically complied with §1731(c) | Bielec: Form was invalid because signature not directly under statutory waiver and selection boxes not ticked, violating proximity requirement | Verizon: Form reproduced statutory language and insured’s tick-box + signature evidenced informed rejection; deviation was minor | Majority: Form invalid for lack of specific compliance; dissent would uphold as sufficient |
| Whether a tick-box deviation is a de minimis variation | Bielec: Tick-box plus layout undermined required form structure and proximity | Verizon: Tick-box is a trivial variation that does not alter meaning or create ambiguity | Dissent: Tick-box de minimis and did not modify coverage; should be valid |
| Whether signature placement must be directly adjacent to statutory text | Bielec: Signature must be proximate to waiver language per Jones | Verizon: Signature at bottom following confirmatory language demonstrates understanding | Majority: Proximity requirement not met; dissent: proximity satisfied by surrounding language and agent signature |
| Whether minor departures from statutory wording or format void a waiver | Bielec: Noncompliance with form requirements renders waiver void | Verizon: Ford and other cases allow minor deviations; specific compliance satisfied | Dissent: Follow Ford and Petty — minor deviations permitted; form valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. American States Insurance Company, 154 A.3d 237 (Pa. 2017) (minor deviations from statutory UIM waiver do not void form if meaning is clear)
- Jones v. Unitrin Auto and Home Ins. Co., 40 A.3d 125 (Pa. Super. 2012) (proximity of signature to waiver language is critical for specific compliance)
- Winslow-Quattlebaum v. Maryland Ins. Group, 752 A.2d 878 (Pa. 2000) (UIM waiver need not stand alone on a page or be isolated from other selections)
- Smith v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 833 A.2d 751 (Pa. Super. 2003) (signature on reverse side of a contract can still validate a waiver if overall requirements are met)
- Petty v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company, 152 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2016) (upholding waiver despite minor deviations from §1731(c) form)