MCGUIRE v. NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
2:23-cv-01347
| W.D. Pa. | Mar 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Eric McGuire, Jr. sued Nationwide Affinity Insurance regarding underinsured-motorist (UIM) coverage after a policy change.
- Central dispute: Whether Nationwide's "One Product" auto insurance policy was a "new" policy or a renewal of a prior policy.
- The Court previously ruled Nationwide's changes reduced coverage, making the new policy not a "renewal" under Pennsylvania law, and required a new stacking waiver form, which Nationwide failed to provide.
- Nationwide filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming legal error in the Court’s interpretation and application of Pennsylvania statutes and exclusions.
- The case turns on statutory definitions and the effect of certain policy exclusions on UIM coverage.
- The Court ultimately denied the motion for reconsideration in a detailed memorandum opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "One Product" is a renewal | Coverage was reduced—policy is not a renewal | Changes in "scope" don't matter; only types/limits of coverage matter | The policy is not a renewal; changes made coverage not "at least equal." |
| Vehicle sharing program exclusion | New exclusions reduced UM/UIM coverage | Scenario already excluded (car-for-hire) | New exclusion (Turo, etc.) did reduce coverage—policy is not a renewal. |
| Reasonable belief (non-permissive use) exclusion | New exclusion is more restrictive | Original "crime" exclusion already barred coverage | "Crime" exclusion does not cover this; new exclusion restricts coverage and is controlling. |
| Public policy implications | Follows statutory language; policy issues cannot override it | Requiring new waivers is a costly, burdensome policy | Public policy cannot override the statute’s plain meaning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (sets standard for motions for reconsideration)
- Indian Harbor Ins. v. F & M Equip., Ltd., 804 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2015) (policy changes may mean a new, not renewal, policy)
- Geist v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 F.4th 861 (3d Cir. 2022) (distinguishes between "issuance" and "purchase" for coverage elections)
- USX Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 444 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2006) (contracts should be construed to give meaning to all provisions)
- McConnaughey v. Bldg. Components, Inc., 637 A.2d 1331 (Pa. 1994) (statutes should not be construed to lead to absurd results)
- Barnard v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins., 216 A.3d 1045 (Pa. 2019) (public policy arguments cannot override clear statutory language)