61 A.3d 1023
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Motor vehicle collision occurred January 9, 2008; Appellant Sally McWeeney was driving a vehicle owned by fiancé Brandt, with Progressive insurance under a limited tort option.
- Appellant and Brandt were listed as principal drivers; Appellant was a permissive driver on the policy.
- Progressive policy named Brandt as Named Insured; Appellant argued she was not named insured or insured under MVFRL §1705, so full tort should apply.
- Lower court held Appellant was a named insured under §1705(a)(2) because she was named on declarations and a principal driver, thus limited tort bound her.
- Appellant appealed, contending policy definitions unlawfully broadened insured status beyond MVFRL definitions; court must interpret statutory text.
- Court vacates the order and remands, holding the policy’s broader definition of insured cannot operate to bar full tort damages where MVFRL contemplates broader rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is McWeeney a named insured under §1705? | McWeeney is not named insured under §1705. | McWeeney is a named insured because she is listed as a principal driver on the declarations page. | Not a named insured under §1705. |
| Is McWeeney an insured under §1705 so as to be bound by Brandt's limited tort election? | McWeeney is not an insured under §1705 and should not be bound. | As a permissive driver listed on the policy, McWeeney is an insured under §1705. | McWeeney is not an §1705 insured; policy cannot bind her to limited tort. |
| Do policy definitions of 'insured' conflict with MVFRL §1705 to preclude full tort rights? | Policy expands 'insured' beyond MVFRL, violating §1705. | Policy terms should control as long as not contrary to statute. | Policy definitions cannot preclude full tort; statute controls; reverse and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Colbert, 572 Pa. 82 (Pa. 2002) (policy's restrictive insured definition conflicts with MVFRL; cannot diminish statutory rights)
- Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 763 A.2d 401 (Pa. Super. 2000) (policy terms conflicting with MVFRL are not enforceable)
- Shipp v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 51 A.3d 219 (Pa. Super. 2012) (summary judgment standard and scope of review)
- Erie Insurance Co. v. Insurance Dept., 705 A.2d 937 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (limits on named insured concept in related context)
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (statutory construction guiding interpretation of legislation)