Peters, M. v. National Interstate Insurance Compan
108 A.3d 38
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Accident occurred in Ohio (Kent County) on August 21, 2009; Michael Peters and his minor daughter Jaden were seriously injured.
- Peters was an Ohio resident employed as a driver for Evans Delivery; Evans Delivery’s policy was issued by National Interstate in Pennsylvania.
- Knecht, the other driver, had insufficient insurance; Knecht’s insurer paid policy limits of $200,000; Peters’ damages substantially exceeded that amount.
- Appellees, under the Evans Delivery policy, claimed UIM benefits under Pennsylvania MVFRL; Evans Delivery rejected UIM in the policy.
- Trial court held a non-jury trial relying on stipulations and exhibits; court found ambiguity in premium calculation supporting coverage; order denying relief issued September 10, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of MVFRL to Ohio-registered vehicle | Peters | National Interstate | MVFRL does not apply; Ohio-registered vehicle not principally garaged in PA |
| Validity of Evans Delivery’s UIM rejection | Peters | National Interstate | Evans Delivery validly rejected UIM coverage; no entitlement to UIM |
| Appellees’ status under policy (insured vs third party beneficiary) | Peters | National Interstate | Appellees are not named insureds; at most third-party beneficiaries; no cognizable UIM claim |
| Ambiguity in premium calculation justifying coverage | Peters | National Interstate | No ambiguity; premium allocation does not create UIM coverage; trial court abused discretion |
| Extent of UIM protection under policy if applicable | Peters | National Interstate | moot; if no right to UIM, moot; not necessary to decide limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Swarner v. Mutual Ben. Group, 72 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. 2013) (exclusionary clauses strictly construed against insurer)
- Eichelman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 1006 (Pa. 1998) (underinsured coverage serves victims but not policy guarantees beyond election)
- Burstein v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 809 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2002) (statutory offer of UM/UIM is optional; premiums correlate with coverage)
- Been v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 751 A.2d 238 (Pa. Super. 2000) (no statutory requirement to provide UM/UIM for third parties; coverage cannot be created where none exists)
- Jones v. Unitrin Auto and Home Ins. Co., 40 A.3d 125 (Pa. Super. 2012) (distinction between named insured vs. third-party beneficiary in rejection cases)