Jones v. Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance
40 A.3d 125
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Lee Jones challenged Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Co.'s denial of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
- Jones’s policy HB865793 mandated UIM/UM coverage equal to liability absent a valid rejection under MVFRL §1731.
- Jones signed a UIM rejection form that included an extra sentence about stacking, alleged to violate §1731(c).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Unitrin, holding the form violated §1731(c) when extra language interfered with statutory language.
- The court remanded after reversing and determining the rejection form was void and not in compliance with §1731(c)(l).
- Appellant appealed, arguing the form complied with §1731(c) and §1731(c)(l) per Winslow-Quattlebaum and Vaxmonsky analyses; the majority held additions void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the extra sentence voids the UIM rejection form | Jones argues added language renders form noncompliant | Unitrin argues extra sentence is clarifying and complies | Void; form does not specifically comply with §1731(c)(l) |
| Whether adding nonessential language creates ambiguity precluding summary judgment | Jones claims confusion precludes judgment | Unitrin claims no material factual issue; language is clarifying | Not reached as form void under §1731(c)(l) |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 606 Pa. 272, 997 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2010) (statutory construction principles for MVFRL appeals; de novo review)
- Erie Ins. Exchange v. Larrimore, 987 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2009) (liberal statutory construction; coverage interpretation)
- Winslow-Quattlebaum v. Maryland Insurance Group, 561 Pa. 629, 752 A.2d 878 (Pa. 2000) (whether UIM rejection must stand alone; proximal relationship of forms)
- American International Ins. Co. v. Vaxmonsky, 916 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that noncompliant language may void a 1731(c) form; distinguishable context)