Byoung Suk an v. Victoria Fire & Casualty Co.
113 A.3d 1283
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On March 20, 2011, a vehicle owned by Zainab Walker and driven by Matthew Gilmore struck Byoung Suk An; Walker’s insurance policy was a low-cost “named driver only” Pennsylvania auto policy issued by Titan/Victoria, listing Walker as the sole covered driver.
- The Policy expressly stated it would not provide coverage when the driver of the insured auto was not listed on the policy and Walker signed an application acknowledging those restrictions.
- An sued Walker and Gilmore; An later filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Victoria had a duty to defend and indemnify Walker and Gilmore for claims arising out of the accident.
- Victoria moved for summary judgment asserting no duty to defend or indemnify because Gilmore was not a named driver; An cross‑moved arguing the “named driver only” exclusion violates 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c) and public policy.
- The trial court denied An’s motion and granted Victoria’s motion; the Superior Court treated the appeal as challenging the grant of summary judgment to Victoria and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (An) | Defendant's Argument (Victoria) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1718(c) of the MVFRL invalidates a “named driver only” policy | §1718(c) limits named‑driver exclusions; Victoria’s policy effectively excludes any non‑listed driver without satisfying §1718(c) requirements, so it conflicts with the statute | §1718(c) governs specific named‑driver exclusions (excluding particular persons); it does not address a policy that provides coverage only to the named driver | §1718(c) is inapplicable; the policy is a “named driver only” product, not the statutory ‘‘named driver exclusion’’ and therefore not invalid under §1718(c) |
| Whether the “named driver only” policy is contrary to public policy | Such policies increase uninsured drivers by denying coverage to non‑listed drivers regardless of whether they have other insurance, undermining MVFRL objectives | Low‑cost policies that limit coverage to a named driver further consumer choice and cost containment and are not contrary to dominant public policy | The policy does not violate public policy; courts should not invalidate clear, unambiguous contractual terms absent a dominant public policy to do so; this is for the legislature to change if desired |
Key Cases Cited
- Matharu v. Muir, 86 A.3d 250 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Continental Cas. Co. v. Pro Machine, 916 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2007) (insurance‑policy interpretation principles)
- Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Zerance, 479 A.2d 949 (Pa. 1984) (courts should not expand coverage beyond policy language)
- Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fackler, 835 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discussion of named‑driver exclusions)
- Williams v. GEICO Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 32 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2011) (clear policy language upheld unless contrary to clear public policy)
- Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Schneck, 813 A.2d 828 (Pa. 2002) (named‑driver exclusions consistent with MVFRL cost‑containment/public policy)
- Erie Ins. Exchange v. Baker, 972 A.2d 507 (Pa. 2009) (MVFRL as embodiment of automobile‑insurance public policy)