Orsag v. Farmers New Century Insurance, 15 A.3d 896

Jeffrey Orsag signed a two-page auto insurance application describing bodily injury limits of $100,000 per person and UM/UIM limits of $15,000 per person, with a clause stating that coverage selections apply to future renewals unless changed in writing.
Insurer later offered only $15,000 UM/UIM after a settlement related to a car accident, despite MVFRL requirement to offer UM/UIM at least equal to bodily injury limits unless a written request lowers them.
Appellants asserted MVFRL §1734 allows a written request to reduce UM/UIM below bodily injury limits and that the signed application did not meet §1734’s writing requirement because it did not explicitly designate a lower amount nor provide §1791 notice.
Trial court sustained demurrers, holding the application satisfied §1734 and that §1791 notice was not necessary for relief.
Superior Court affirmed, agreeing the signed application satisfied §1734’s writing requirement because it clearly indicated reduced UM/UIM coverage and was signed by the insured.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review on whether a signed application containing lowered UM/UIM limits alone constitutes a valid §1734 writing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a signed insurance application meeting reduced UM/UIM limits satisfy §1734?	Orsags: signed form indicates lower UM/UIM; forms alone meet §1734.	Farmers: signature plus designated lower amount on the application satisfies §1734; no separate form required.	Yes; the signed application satisfied §1734.
Must §1734 writing include explicit designation of the reduced amount and intent to reduce below bodily injury limits?	Orsags: designation absent; writing not explicit; no §1791 notice necessary for §1734.	Farmers: signature near designations suffices to show intent to reduce.	Yes; the application clearly designated reduced UM/UIM and showed intent to reduce.
Is §1791 notice or a separate form required to satisfy §1734?	Orsags: lack of §1791 notice undermines validity of reduction.	Farmers: §1791 notice not required for §1734 reductions; §1734 is broader and not form-specific.	Not required for §1734 written reduction.

Lewis v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 568 Pa. 105, 793 A.2d 143 (2002) (1734 requires signature and express designation of amount; not for 1731 waiver)
Blood v. Old Guard Insurance Co., 594 Pa. 151, 934 A.2d 1218 (2007) (1734 plain; writing remains effective after bodily injury changes)
O'Mara (Hartford Insurance Co. v. O'Mara), 907 A.2d 589 (Pa. Super. 2006) (detailed application form can satisfy 1734 when providing explicit limits)
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Larrimore, 987 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (court held application alone did not meet 1734; required explicit designation)
State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. v. Hughes, 438 F. Supp. 2d 526 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (federal court found documents sufficient when paired with separate acknowledgment)
Motorists Insurance Companies v. Emig, 444 Pa. Super. 524, 664 A.2d 559 (1995) (form with blank reduction section insufficient for 1734)
Brethren Mutual Insurance Company v. Triboski-Gray, 584 F. Supp. 2d 687 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (federal court found application insufficient for 1734 where no 1791-type form used)