Shipp v. Phoenix Insurance Co.
51 A.3d 219
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Phoenix appeals after summary judgment for Shipps in a declaratory action regarding UM/UIM stacking under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1738.
- Shipps signed a waiver rejecting stacked UM/UIM coverage on Sept 12, 2002; policy initially provided $100,000 non-stacked UM/UIM and $200,000 stacked limits.
- Policy renewals kept the same stacking limits (200,000 stacked / 100,000 unstacked) despite changes in vehicles over time.
- Between 2004 and 2005, several vehicles were added/replaced, but Phoenix did not offer new stacking waivers or present new waiver forms.
- On Feb 3, 2006, Michael Shipp was injured and later died in an accident while two covered vehicles had collision and comprehensive coverage; Shipps claimed $200,000 in stacked UM/UIM, Phoenix tendered $100,000 and denied stacking.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Shipps, which Phoenix challenged on whether a second waiver was required when a replacement vehicle occurred under the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substitution of a replacement vehicle triggers a second 1738 waiver. | Shipps: replacement did not constitute a purchase; no new waiver needed. | Phoenix: substitution could be a purchase requiring a new waiver. | No second waiver required; stacking not permitted. |
| Whether the policy's continuous after-acquired vehicle clause affects whether a new UM/UIM purchase occurred. | Shipps: continuous coverage with notice suffices; no new waiver. | Phoenix: replacement may constitute a new purchase. | Replacement did not constitute a new UM/UIM purchase; waiver not re-obtained. |
| Whether Sackett II governs whether new vehicle changes require re-waiver when coverage changes. | Shipps: apply Sackett II continuous coverage ruling. | Phoenix: policy changes may trigger new waiver. | Sackett II applies; continued coverage without a new waiver suffices. |
| Whether increased liability or added collision affects stacking or waiver requirements. | Shipps: any coverage change impacts stacking rights. | Phoenix: stacking rights governed by UM/UIM limits, not collateral coverages. | Irrelevant to stacking; UM/UIM limits remained $200,000 stacked/$100,000 unstacked. |
| Whether the change from an additional vehicle to a replacement vehicle alters stacking obligation. | Shipps: replacement vehicle should not change stacking rights. | Phoenix: substitution may be treated as new purchase. | Replacement did not change UM/UIM coverage amount; no new waiver required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sackett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 591 Pa. 416, 919 A.2d 194 (2007) (holding that adding a vehicle in Sackett I required re-waiver; Sackett II clarified auto-clause impact on waiver)
- Sackett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 596 Pa. 11, 940 A.2d 329 (2007) (Sackett II; continuing coverage with notice does not require re-waiver; finite vs. continuous clauses)
- Sackett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 4 A.3d 637 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Sackett III; newly acquired vehicle provisions of lapsing type require re-waiver; distinction for replacement)
- Smith v. The Hartford, Ins. Co., 849 A.2d 277 (Pa. Super. 2004) (unrelated policy increases (liability) do not trigger UM/UIM waiver re-obtainment)
- Erie Ins. Exch. v. Larrimore, 987 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (summary judgment standard in declaratory actions; context for ordinary rules)