Pergolese v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 162 A.3d 481

John and Peggy Pergolese held two Standard Fire (formerly Aetna/Travelers) auto policies: a multi-vehicle policy and a single-vehicle policy; both originally contained signed waivers rejecting stacked UM/UIM coverage.
In Feb 1998 the Pergoleses removed a vehicle from the multi-vehicle policy; 44 days later (Apr 8, 1998) they added a 1990 Ford F‑150, requested proof of coverage before purchase, and the insurer issued amended declarations showing four vehicles and an increased premium.
John Pergolese was severely injured in a July 23, 2001 accident; the Pergoleses submitted a UIM claim and sought stacking across both policies (arguing insurer failed to obtain a new waiver when the F‑150 was added).
Standard Fire refused stacking; the Pergoleses sued for declaratory relief. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed; the trial court granted plaintiffs’ (Pergoleses’) cross-motion and denied the insurer’s motion.
The appellate majority affirmed, holding the addition of the F‑150 constituted a ‘‘purchase’’ of additional UM/UIM coverage that required a new stacking waiver because the after-acquired-vehicle clause was not triggered.
A concurrence agreed with the result but questioned the policy rationale; a dissent argued the amended declarations created continuous coverage equivalent to an after-acquired clause and no new waiver was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adding the F‑150 to the multi-vehicle policy required the insurer to obtain a new UM/UIM stacking waiver under 75 Pa.C.S. §1738(c)	Addition of the F‑150 (via amended declarations) was a purchase of additional UM/UIM coverage triggering §1738(c) and requiring a new waiver	No new waiver required because coverage was extended under existing policy terms (after-acquired or continuous coverage), not a new purchase	Addition of the F‑150 constituted a purchase requiring a new waiver; insurer must have obtained a new stacking waiver (majority)
Whether the policy’s after-acquired-vehicle clause provided continuous coverage so no new waiver was needed	(Plaintiffs) After-acquired clause did not apply because vehicle was added to declarations; therefore Sackett I controls and new waiver required	(Defendant) Clause provides continuous coverage (or otherwise applicable) so no new waiver per Sackett II	Court held the after-acquired clause was inapplicable here (vehicle added to declarations), so Sackett I/Bumbarger require a new waiver; dissent would have treated the clauses as equivalent and continuous (no waiver needed)
Scope of stacking (inter-policy amount) — raised by insurer on appeal	N/A (not raised below)	Insurer argued only $400,000 available rather than $500,000	Issue not preserved below; waived by insurer; court did not decide

Sackett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 591 Pa. 416, 919 A.2d 194 (Pa. 2007) (Sackett I) (addition of vehicle to existing policy can constitute a purchase under §1738(c))
Sackett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 596 Pa. 11, 940 A.2d 329 (Pa. 2007) (Sackett II) (clarifies that after-acquired‑vehicle clauses that provide continuous coverage do not trigger a new waiver; finite grace‑period clauses do)
Sackett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 4 A.3d 637 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Sackett III) (on remand; endorsement addition required new waiver where after-acquired clause did not govern)
Bumbarger v. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co., 93 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (addition of vehicle via endorsement/declaration placement rendered after-acquired clause irrelevant and required new waiver)
Shipp v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 51 A.3d 219 (Pa. Super. 2012) (distinguishes replacement vehicles covered continuously from additions that trigger §1738 waiver obligations)
Toner v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 137 A.3d 583 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses after-acquired clauses and their functioning as automatic short‑term coverage)
Smith v. Hartford Ins. Co., 849 A.2d 277 (Pa. Super. 2004) (policy changes such as limit increases do not necessarily require new rejection/waiver forms under statutory notice scheme)
Craley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 586 Pa. 484, 895 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2006) (recognizes inter- and intra-policy stacking contexts)