Clarke, T. v. MMG Insurance Co.
100 A.3d 271
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- April 16, 2012, Clarke injured in a motorcycle-car crash causing permanent injuries
- Clarke carried two policies: American Modern Select for the motorcycle (UIM) and MMG for two autos (not the motorcycle)
- Clarke received $25,000 from American Modern and $100,000 from the other driver; insufficient for losses
- MMG denied UIM claim citing a Household Exclusion
- Appellants filed amended complaint seeking declaratory relief and damages
- Court ultimately vacated the partial denial and remanded for further proceedings with MMG cross-motion
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MMG owe UIM coverage where the motorcycle had first-tier UIM elsewhere? | Clarke: policy unambiguously covers the motorcycle | MMG: household exclusion excludes non-listed vehicles | Yes, MMG owes UIM coverage |
| Is the UIM exclusion phrase missing 'under this policy' intentional, requiring effect of entire policy? | Clarke: exclusion language must be read with UM language | MMG: exclusion stands alone | No surplusage; read with UM exclusion to require coverage |
| Did the trial court err by considering public policy instead of plain policy terms? | Clarke: public policy not controlling when policy language clear | MMG: public policy supports denial | Public policy consideration inappropriate after clear contract terms—interpret plain language |
| Is the UIM exclusion ambiguous, requiring construction in favor of coverage? | Clarke: language is clear and favors coverage | MMG: exclusion creates ambiguity | Language is clear and unambiguous; no ambiguity to construe in Clarke's favor |
Key Cases Cited
- United Services Auto. Assoc. v. Elitzky, 358 Pa. Super. 362, 517 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1986) (contract interpretation; de novo standard of review for questions of law)
- Genaeya Corp. v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co., 991 A.2d 342 (Pa. Super. 2010) (interpretation of insurance contracts; de novo review)
- Luko v. Lloyd’s London, 573 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Super. 1990) (read policy as a whole; not isolated provisions)
- Masters v. Celina Mut. Ins. Co., 224 A.2d 774 (Pa. Super. 1966) (interpret policy to give effect to all terms)
- Rimpa v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 590 A.2d 784 (Pa. Super. 1991) (principle that mention excludes; use within context of policy language)
- Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Colbert, 813 A.2d 747 (Pa. 2002) (public policy considered only after plain terms justify denial)