Safe Auto v. Oriental-Guillermo Apl of: Jimenez
26 MAP 2018
Pa.Aug 20, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs Priscila and Luis Jimenez are insureds challenging Safe Auto’s unlisted resident driver exclusion after being denied coverage for an accident involving an unlisted household driver.
- The case reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s enforcement of the exclusion.
- Jimenezes raise two arguments: (1) the exclusion violates the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) statutory provisions; (2) the exclusion violates the public policy embodied in the MVFRL.
- The Supreme Court (majority) upheld the exclusion as enforceable under the MVFRL; Justice Wecht concurred but wrote separately to clarify the public-policy doctrine.
- Justice Wecht agreed the MVFRL’s text does not prohibit such exclusions and cautioned that courts should not void contracts based on speculative legislative intent or generalized public-policy concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unlisted resident driver exclusion violates MVFRL §§ 1786(a) and (f) | MVFRL requires financial responsibility for vehicles and the exclusion undermines that mandate | MVFRL text does not prohibit insurers from using unlisted resident driver exclusions | Court: Rejected plaintiff; MVFRL language is unambiguous and does not bar such exclusions |
| Whether the exclusion is unenforceable as contrary to public policy underlying the MVFRL | Exclusion frustrates MVFRL’s remedial/public-safety purposes and should be void as against public policy | No long-standing, clearly-expressed public policy (statute or practice) forbids these exclusions; courts must not invalidate contracts on vague policy grounds | Court (Wecht concurrence): Rejected using speculative legislative intent as proof of a dominant public policy; absent a clear statutory or longstanding practice prohibiting the term, exclusion stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Eichelman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 1006 (Pa. 1998) (void-for-public-policy doctrine limited to conflicts with definite, dominant public policy)
- Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755 (Pa. 1994) (public policy ascertained by reference to laws and legal precedents, not general interest)
- Paylor v. Hartford Ins. Co., 640 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1994) (discusses legislative concerns about insurance costs)
- Williams v. GEICO, 32 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2011) (characterizes portions of MVFRL as remedial; illustrates differing views on legislative intent)
- Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 809 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2002) (distinguishes using public policy to interpret statutory intent from using it to invalidate contracts)