18 A.3d 1206
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- From 2002–2004, Catalini had BI limits of 100/300 and UIM limits of 15/30 under Nationwide; he later changed BI to 25/50 and UIM to 25/50 in 2004, resulting in equal BI and UIM at that time.
- In 2006, Catalini sought to replace a Porsche with a 2007 Audi and to add leaseholder coverage, with a form stating Change BI to 100/300 and leave other coverages the same; Nationwide increased BI to 100/300 while leaving UIM at 25/50.
- Following an accident in December 2006, Appellants claimed UIM benefits up to 100/300, arguing the 2006 form created an election to raise UIM as well.
- Nationwide filed a declaratory judgment action contending UIM remained at 25/50 and no new election was required by statute after increasing BI; trial court ruled for Nationwide.
- Appellants appealed, arguing the 2006 form was an ambiguous election to increase UIM and thus entitled them to 100/300 UIM; the panel affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
- The court relied on Blood v. Old Guard Insurance Co. and related cases to hold that no new UIM election was required when increasing BI under an existing policy, given the absence of a specific designation to change UIM in the signed form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 2006 form validly election reduced UIM per §1734? | Catalini argues the phrase 'leave other coverages the same' is ambiguous and insufficient to elect reduced UIM. | Nationwide contends the change form satisfies 1734 and did not require a new UIM election. | No new election required; form sufficient to reflect intended BI increase with UIM unchanged. |
| Is Nationwide obligated to provide UIM at the same level as BI when the 2006 change form is ambiguous? | Catalini claims they should get 100/300 UIM since BI was raised. | No obligation to adjust UIM absent an express designation; MVFRL does not mandate a new UIM sign-down. | Nationwide not obligated to raise UIM; UIM remains at 25/50 per policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blood v. Old Guard Insurance Co., 934 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2007) (MVFRL did not require a new UIM election after increasing BI limits; Blood supports no new 1734 election when not desired by insured)
- Erie Insurance Exchange v. Larrimore, 987 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clarifies requirements for written 1734 election)
- Hartford Insurance Co. v. O'Mara, 907 A.2d 589 (Pa. Super. 2006) (set forth elements of a valid 1734 election)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 438 F. Supp. 2d 526 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (persuasive pre-Blood view on whether a new election is required after BI increase)