Ford, A., Aplt. v. American States Ins.
2017 Pa. LEXIS 444
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Mother purchased an auto policy from American States; daughter Alisha (Appellant) was an insured as a household resident. Mother signed a UIM rejection form and did not pay premiums for UIM coverage.
- Appellant was injured in a 2013 collision; tortfeasor’s insurer paid its $25,000 limit; Appellant sought UIM benefits but was denied because Mother had signed the rejection form.
- The rejection form used by American States tracked the statutory form in 75 Pa.C.S. § 1731(c) but substituted "motorists" for "motorist" at a few points (minor word/typographical deviations).
- Appellant sued for declaratory relief asserting the form was void under § 1731(c.1) because it did not "specifically comply" with the statutory language, entitling her to UIM equal to the policy BI limits.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for American States; Superior Court affirmed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance to resolve whether de minimis deviations render a § 1731(c) rejection form void.
- The Supreme Court held that forms with inconsequential (de minimis) deviations that do not create ambiguity or change scope still "specifically comply" with § 1731, so the insurer’s form was valid and no UIM recovery was owed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a UIM rejection form must be a verbatim reproduction of § 1731(c) to "specifically comply" under § 1731(c.1) | Ford: statute requires exact, verbatim use of the legislatively drafted form; any deviation voids the form and triggers BI-limit UIM | American States: specific compliance is satisfied when deviations are de minimis and do not introduce ambiguity, alter scope, or mislead the insured | Court: Specific compliance allows de minimis, inconsequential deviations that do not alter meaning or create ambiguity; form valid |
| Proper remedy if rejection form does not "specifically comply" | Ford: void the form and require UIM equal to bodily injury limits | American States: only forms that change coverage or create ambiguity should be voided; minor typos need not invalidate | Court: remedy (voiding) applies when noncompliance is more than de minimis and affects clarity or coverage; not applied here |
| How to interpret "specifically comply" in § 1731(c.1) | Ford: plain language mandates strict/verbatim conformity; "specifically" means exact | American States: read in context—allows precise compliance with statutory purpose; "specifically" does not necessarily forbid trivial errors | Court: read statute in context—legislature required specific compliance with section, not literal word-for-word reproduction; minor typographical deviations permitted |
| Reliance on prior precedent (Vaxmonsky, Jones, Robinson) | Ford: superior court decisions require strict conformity and support voiding non-verbatim forms | American States: precedents that invalidated forms did so because of ambiguity or separation of signature/date; Robinson supports upholding minor deviations | Court: distinguished cases that injected ambiguity; followed reasoning permitting de minimis deviations like Robinson and affirmed summary judgment for insurer |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Erie Ins. Exch., 793 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002) (discusses § 1731(c.1) and prior treatment of rejection-form compliance)
- American Int’l Ins. Co. v. Vaxmonsky, 916 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (invalidated rejection form that omitted the word causing ambiguity)
- Jones v. Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co., 40 A.3d 125 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (invalidated rejection form where added language disrupted proximate relationship to signature/date and created nonconformity)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (summary judgment standard)