Decrosta, M. v. Erie Insurance Group
2982 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Michele DeCrosta held an Erie Insurance auto policy since ~1990 insuring two vehicles and was injured in a 2012 accident. She sought stacked UM/UIM benefits.
- In September 2004 DeCrosta signed a written waiver rejecting stacked UM/UIM limits (the "2004 waiver"); the waiver was reflected in policy documents and reduced her premium.
- In June 2006 one covered vehicle (Auto #2, a 1985 Camaro) was removed and another (Auto #3, a 1999 Malibu) was added; no new waiver was obtained at that time.
- Erie treated the 2006 change as a replacement vehicle endorsement and continued to apply the 2004 unstacked waiver.
- DeCrosta sued seeking stacked benefits; Erie moved for summary judgment arguing the 2004 waiver was valid and remained effective after the replacement vehicle change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2004 waiver where date handwriting is anonymous | DeCrosta: handwritten date is unauthenticated and raises a material factual dispute about whether the waiver in effect was the signed 2004 form | Erie: waiver was signed by DeCrosta and statutory requirement is signature (date not required to invalidate waiver) | Court: waiver valid because MVFRL requires signature (and forms be dated to be valid per §1738(e)), but signature suffices; handwriting dispute immaterial; summary judgment for Erie affirmed |
| Whether adding Auto #3 required a new waiver (was it a "replacement vehicle") | DeCrosta: policy language "acquires ... to replace" ambiguous; argues Auto #3 was not a replacement and Erie should have obtained a new waiver | Erie: Auto #3 was a replacement for Auto #2 (policy endorsement shows "Auto #2- Replaced"); no change in number of covered vehicles so no new waiver required | Court: follows Shipp — replacement of one covered vehicle by another does not change available UM/UIM coverage; Erie not required to obtain new waiver; summary judgment for Erie affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipp v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 51 A.3d 219 (Pa. Super. 2012) (replacement vehicle substitution does not create new UM/UIM exposure requiring a new waiver)
- Bumbarger v. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co., 93 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. 2014) (analytical framework: how vehicle was added and policy clause language determine need for new waiver)
- Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 788 A.2d 955 (Pa. 2001) (statutory interpretation limits courts from adding requirements not in statute)
- Commonwealth v. Gehris, 54 A.3d 862 (Pa. 2012) (court may not insert requirements into statute beyond legislative text)