65 A.3d 976
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Weilachers are named insureds under State Farm mutual policy 005 0085-F27 in force on April 26, 2010, and seeks underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for Melissa’s injuries from an April 26, 2010 accident with Gwen Steger in Waterford, PA.
- State Farm added UIM coverage to the Weilachers’ policy in February 2000 at $25,000/$50,000 after the Weilachers had initial UM/UIM rejection in 1994, and the policy was transferred from State Farm Fire and Casualty to the mutual policy in September 1999.
- The Weilachers had never signed a written request to lower UIM limits after UIM was added in 2000, and BI limits were subsequently increased to $500,000 in January 2009 without a new written 1734 request.
- The trial court granted State Farm summary judgment and held UIM should be $25,000/$50,000 per Blood v. Old Guard Ins. Co.; the Weilachers appealed.
- The court frames MVFRL requirements: 1731 mandates offering UM/UIM; 1734 allows written requests to lower limits; 1791 creates a presumption of informed choice but does not itself create a lower-limit election.
- The appellate court reverses and remands, holding UIM must equal the bodily-injury limits ($500,000) absent a valid written 1734 reduction request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blood controls the case where there was no prior written 1734 request. | Weilachers: Blood does not require a new lower-limit request after addition of UIM. | State Farm: Blood controls; no new written request required to keep lower limits when all prior actions done. | Blood does not apply; remanded for reformation to $500,000 UIM absent valid 1734 request. |
| Whether State Farm was obligated to provide UIM equal to BI limits after BI limits increased. | Weilachers: after adding UIM post-rejection, 1731/1734 require equal UIM unless valid 1734 reduction. | State Farm: no obligation to change absent valid 1734 request. | UIM must equal BI limits of $500,000 absent valid 1734 reduction. |
| Whether there is a judicial remedy to reform UIM limits when no written 1734 request exists. | Weilachers seek reform under 1731/1734 to match BI limits. | State Farm: Salazar-based remedy not applicable; Blood limits defense. | Remedy exists; reform to match BI limits is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blood v. Old Guard Ins. Co., 934 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2007) (holding that 1734 reduction requires proper written request; Blood’s situation governs post-addition reductions)
- Smith v. Hartford Ins. Co., 849 A.2d 277 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (initial rejection survives increases absent insured’s affirmative change; insurer may supply lower limits only on affirmative request)
- Larrimore v. Erie Ins. Exch., 987 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (remedies to reform UM/UIM when no valid 1734 request; premiums do not waive limits)
- Catalini v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 18 A.3d 1206 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Catalini distinguishable; different facts on when 1734 applies; not controlling here)
- Salazar v. Allstate Ins. Co., 549 Pa. 658 (Pa. 1997) (insurer’s failure to comply with 1791.1 does not itself create a statutory remedy absent explicit grant)