*2 RENDELL, Circuit Judge. Appellant challenges the District Court’s ruling that Nationwide Mutual Insurance (“Nationwide”) Company was not required payment make of uninsured benefits to or on behalf appellant in excess of the $25,000 amount stated in the policy limits after an earlier named insured under the policy, husband, her former had elected that amount in writing. An understanding of the facts is necessary to our discussion. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellant (also Rosetta Buffetta re- Miriello) to as ferred was married to Saverio Buffetta in August 1981, Mr. Buffetta obtained an automobile policy, 5837B93654, insurance No. thereafter, Nationwide. Sometime appel- lant Rosetta Buffetta became licensed driver and was added to as such. However, from 1981 to Mr. Buffetta was the sole named insured under the policy. The initial limité of liability the policy $25,000/$50,000 were $25,000/$50,000 for uninsured parties stipulated to several of important facts, them recite car, Rosetta to the taking title Upon verbatim:1 Mutual the Nationwide notified Property Settlement aof terms By the divorce Company Saver- August dated Agreement placed requested in- automobile retained io Buffetta *3 1995, 10, July Effective her name. In- Mutual the Nationwide under on identified insured/policyholder named Company policy. surance the Nationwide pages of the declaration filed 1994, Buffetta Rosetta In October policy was Company Insurance Mutual On Buffetta. Saverio divorce from for Effective Buffetta. to Rosetta changed re- 1994, Buffetta 22, Saverio October underwriting/rating 14, 1995, the July limits of liability in the change a quested changed Buffetta Rosetta status In- Mutual Nationwide coverage of unmarried. married to from $25, from Company policy surance writ- any signed never Buffetta Rosetta $300,- $100,000.00/ to 000.00/$50,000.00 uninsured requesting ten authorization 1994, 22, Saverio October On 000.00. bodily limits motorist an Uninsured and dated signed Buffetta Nationwide Ferullo J. limits. Form Authorization Coverage Motorist en- changes and all handled who agent maintain and continue to electing and Policy to dorsement motorist uninsured $25,000.00/$50,000.00 un- is deceased Mr. Ferullo 1995. 22, October Effective coverage limit. testimony re- available on the 1994, coverage limits this matter. garding Insur- Mutual Nationwide by the issued 14, 1997, Miriel- Francesco February On $100,000'.00/$300, Company were ance in a motor injuries fatal lo sustained $25, coverage and liability 000.00 vehicle motor accident. vehicle 000.00/$50,000 .00 uninsured Miriello Francesco struck which accident, time of the theAt uninsured. the divorce his filing with resided Following the Miriello Francesco Buffetta same, Following Saverio entry of Buffetta. Rosetta daughter, at live continued the Estate Buffetta question, Rosetta the accident ’ Street, Philadelphia, claim S. Carlisle Miriello made Francesco and Ro- Company Buffetta Saverio Pennsylvania. Mutual Insurance Nationwide 1, March motorist bene- were divorced recovery Buffetta of uninsured setta for to live Buffetta continued Saverio 1995. fits. Street, Philadelphia, Carlisle
at 2343 S.
liabili-
Nationwide’s
that
Buffetta contends
Italy
moved to
until he
Pennsylvania,
ty for uninsured
live
continues
$25,000,
be limited
policy should
Street, Philadelphia,
S. Carlisle
at 2343
writing
never executed
she
because
Pennsylvania.
$75,000
her
amount,
less than
which
She
bodily injury.
$100,000
Buffet-
Italy, Saverio
moving
Prior
Pennsyl-
1734 of
that section
contends
the automobile
title of
ta transferred
Responsibil-
Financial
Vehicle
vania Motor
Mutual
the Nationwide
her, a
(“MVFRL”)
requires
ity Law
to Rosetta
Company
insured,”
signed written
to have
“named
insured/policy-
Buffetta.
that,
since
authorization
the declarations
identified
holder
authorization,
such
Insur-
never
Nationwide'Mutual
of the
pages
as to
so
“reformed”
must be
from October
Company policy
ance
mo-
for uninsured
the same
permit
Saverio
1995 was
July
until
injury.
coverage as
torist
Buffetta.
Court, re-
in the
submitted
of Facts
reproduced
narrative
factual
1. The
Appendix.
pages 23a-25a
printed Stipulation
through
paragraphs 12
Nationwide,
hand,
on the other
contends West v. AT & T
223, 231,
311 U.S.
can
there
be no reformation
because
(1940).
S.Ct.
of uninsured bodily injury. amounts, were coverage in provisions previous The in 1990. amended Id. elec- that, a written without
had
section
examined
District
The
automati-
tion,
coverage
UIM
arguments.
parties’
of the
light
liability limits.
higher
default
one
cally
issue as
characterized
parties
Both
however, made
amendments,
so as
The
“reformation”
require-
comply with
$100,000
the failure
only
of UIM
waiver
rather
ments
total
uninsured
provision,
default
au-
automatic
had been
$25,000
subject
default
any automatic
Buffetta.
providing
Mr.
writing by
thorized
for reduc-
providing
remedy in the
skepticism
expressed
stat-
coverage amounts.
UIMof
tion
policy to
ability
reform
to its
waiver of
total
regarding
utory
statutory pro-
limits absent
UIM
higher
coverage,
and reduction
ÜIM
It noted that
that effect.
vision
follows:
read as
now
Pa.
v. Allstate
Salazar
*5
Donnelly
(Pa.1997), and
1038
702 A.2d
will
(c.l)
waiver.—Insurers
Forms
(Pa.
447
720 A.2d
Bauer,
Pa.
v.
by
required
forms
rejection
print
Supreme Court
1998),
(c)
(b)
separate
on
and
subsections
relating
certain notice
construed
location.
type and
prominent
in
sheets
an insured
held that
and
to UIM
by the first
signed
must be
forms
reformation
not
obtain
to be valid.
dated
insured
provided
specifically
the MYFRL
unless
may be wit-
the form
on
signatures
noted
The District
remedy.
that
or broker.
agent
an insurance
nessed
legislature
that,
while
specifi-
not
that does
form
rejection
Any
uninsured
waiver
a total
that
void.
this section
comply with
cally
If
in
ineffective
be
coverage would
re-
a valid
produce
insurer
fails
rejection form
of a valid
absence
or underin-
uninsured
form,
jection
bodily
to the
default
automatically
both,
may
case
as the
or
in
providing
injury limits—thus
to the
equal
will be
be,
that
appli-
statutory section
situation —the
poli-
On
liability limits.
bodily injury
situation, namely, sec-
instant
to the
cable
uninsured
under-
in which either
cies
remedy. How-
no such
contains
tion
rejected,
been
coverage has
insured
did not resolve
ever,
notice
must contain
renewals
basis,
proceeded
but
on this
matter
not
policy does
type that
prominent
argument:
other
address Nationwide’s
damages
against
provide protection
of section
no violation
been
there had
or underinsured
by uninsured
caused
only requires
the section
1734 because
who executes
person
Any
motorists.
lower
for the
authorization
(c)
(b)
shall
a subsection
waiver
Buffetta, a named
limits, and Saverio
UIM
liability of
claiming
precluded
be
authorization
an
insured,
such
signed
had
infor-
inadequate
based
any person
credited
District Court
form. The
mation.
concluding:
argument,
(1996) (em-
1731(c.l)
Pa.
Cons.Stat.
actually
which
change
I find that
added).
phasis
after
pages
on
declaration
listed her
elec-
a new
require
did
coverage:
the divorce
Request
in order
coverage to
tion of
writing
may request
named insured
A
As
coverage.
the same
continue
coverages under
the issuance
Cigna Ins.
of Kimball
in the case
scope and
availability,
(relating to
(Pa.Su-
143, A.2d 1386
Pa.Super.
equal
in amounts
coverage)
per.1995), Rosetta Miriello Buffetta was
We start with the statutory lan
initially listed as a driver under the poli- guage we
quoted
statute,
above. The
cy.
terms,
Under the policy
she enjoyed
terms,
its
does not require anything to
the same
status as
named insured.
be done
permit
insurer to
the reduc
Saverio Buffetta was initially the named tion in the amount of UIM coverage under
the policy
elected,
he
when
in a policy. Rather, section
provides
writing,
the lower limits of uninsured
that “a named insured may request
When Rosetta Mir- writing the issuance of coverages ...
iello Buffetta assumed
equal
amounts
to or less than the limits of
insured,
became the listed
she took no the liability
injury.” Unlike sec
steps to change the policy provisions for
tion
section 1734 does not dictate
more than
years.
three
During that
the opportunity
reduction,
or a
time, she received premium and overage
effect,
form to that
be presented when a
notices
paid premiums
every six policy is
It merely provides
issued.
that a
so,
months.
In doing
acquiesced
reduction of this kind may be accom
the coverage that had been selected.
plished,
only
by a writing which consti
tutes a request by a named
Opinion,
insured.
at 6.
We will affirm the District Court’s
Interestingly,
the case law that has
order essentially for the reasons stated
developed regarding
section,
which
therein.3 We note that while the issue of Ms. Buffetta
upon,
relies
has arisen in a
“reformation” of
policy implicated
by different
case,
context.
In each
the in-
parties’
arguments and that the pro
surer has claimed that a reduction was
*6
nouncements of
Pennsylvania
the
Supreme
authorized, but
argument
the
has focused
Court on this
appear
issue
favor
to
Nation
on whether
there was in fact a signed
wide’s position, we agree with the District writing that
valid,
constituted a
effective
Court’s analysis that there was no section request of a named insured for the re-
violation,
1784
and thus we need not add duction.
In the instances in which the
our voice to the ongoing
of
discussion
poli
successful,
insured has been
it has been
cy reformation in the Pennsylvania courts.4
based
the
of a valid
absence
writ-
We base our affirmance on
unique
the
set
request
ten
for reduced coverages signed
of
presented
facts
and the absence in
a named insured. See Nationwide
statutory language
any
of
requirement for
Ins.
Resseguie,
Co. v.
insured);
Ins.
Motorists
to act:
(Pa.Su
obligation
559
A.2d
Pa.Super.
completion
form
not listed
(agent’s
bar,
plaintiff was
per.Ct.1995)
At
albeit
time,
statutory requirement
her
at the
satisfy
insured”
“named
did
v.
form to
insured); Botsko
“sign
down”
executed
request
mother
Co.,
Pa.Super.
cover-
Ins.
Mut.
Donegal
reduce uninsured/underinsured
(written
when
(Pa.Super.Ct.1993)
a “named insured”
age, she was
A.2d 30
amending
ineffective
coverage
“endorsement”
request
ad
insured”
a “named
her as
listing
no
where
evidence
Kimball household.
by statute
at the
coverage mandated
received
vised
indicated
favor of
the amendment
Specifically,
authorization
signing
before
mo-
the uninsured
language
coverage).
clear
lesser
$100,000 and no
coverage stood
torist
a valid written
Here,
there
However,
taken
action was
no
higher.
only
Buffetta.
Saverio
executed
level
rectify
this
plaintiff
by the
on Rosetta
binding
it is
is whether
issue
have increased
coverage. She
agree
setting,
Given
Buffetta.
mother’s
her
Pennsylva-
that the
increases)
(with
premium
accompanying
ruling in Kimball
Court’s
Superior
nia
separate
her own
secured
Pa.Super.
Cigna
not be amenable
mother
her
provides
(Pa.Super.Ct.1995),
A.2d
additional
coverage and
increased
resolu-
probable
into the
insight
best
plaintiff
therewith.
associated
cost
by the
issue
tion of
front.
on either
no action
took
courts.
remained
limits
Moreover,
periods
renewal
for two
effect
as driv-
was listed
plaintiff
In
to in-
part
plaintiffs
on the
effort
but her moth-
policy,
under her father’s
er
$100,000.00
beyond
crease
Her
insured.”
only “named
was the
er
insur-
limit
uninsured/underinsured
reducing
unin-
a form
executed
mother
(at
Rather,
premiums
ance.
in 1990.
*7
rate)
be paid
continued
lower
vehicle,
and
purchased
plaintiff
agent
Cigna
complaint to
question
added
policy
of
portion
“endorsement”
coverage. Under
level of
about
Plaintiff
.”
a “named insured
her as
Pa.
scenario,
is consistent
as
by an uninsured
injured
the re-
of
payment
C.S.A.
by
bound
she
contended
and
(which
occurred
here
premiums
newal
made for
had
her mother
the election
awas
plaintiff
while
least
twice
that, when she was
coverage and
reduced
insured”)
plain-
[the
evidences
“named
election, she
after the
policy
to the
added
understand-
knowledge and
actual
tiffs]
as to
informed
have been
these benefits
availability of
ing of the
required
and
available
amount
benefits
as well
and limits
for lower
request
a written
to execute
... selected.
Penn-
1734. The
not ac-
did
plaintiff
if the
Accordingly,
authority
cited
Superior
sylvania
election,
receipt
upon
cept her mother’s
and federal
courts
pleas
common
limit and
the lower
policy with
plain-
one
effect that
to the
cases
contact-
she
premiums,
lower
writing
by
position
bound
tiffs
informed
company,
the insurance
ed
named insured.
by another
with the
of the dissatisfaction
position,
them
plaintiffs
that one
court noted
cov-
uninsured/underinsured
and re-
becoming
named
upon
corrected
it be
requested
erage and
poli-
amending
ceiving
endorsement
In-
own.
on her
policy
another
obtained
a named insured
her as
cy
listed
stead,
plaintiff
accepted
this is not evident in the statutory lan-
n withthe lower limits without complaint guage, nor was it expressed in Kimball.
permitted
payment of
pre-
the lower
above,
As we noted
the statute requires
mium without incident. To find that the
only that a waiver
form be
plaintiff
by
is not bound
her mother’s
issuance
a policy.
There is no statutory
election
remaining
silent on the is-
requirement
that an
given
insured be
sue of increased coverage, while reaping
reduction authorization form without the
rates,
the benefits of reduced
would be
insured’s having requested one. The stat-
Here,
reward inaction.
plaintiff
ute is
in permissive terms,
leaving
had the means and opportunity to avoid it
insured,
to a named
who “may” request
shortfall,
insurance
took
no reduced coverage.
option
exists to
action
the matter.
and,
such a
submit,
Kimball,
We realize that the issue before us is not the policy, could have notified the insur- precisely but, situation in company ance that she did not drawing on the want Pennsylvania Superior bound another’s repeated Court’s election of reduced references to a later being insured’s bound having understood the policy limits and ac- We also view the Pennsylvania Supreme quiesced in them paying premi- Court’s reasoning in its opinions recent ums, we conclude that the instant factual Salazar and Donnelly regarding the issue is setting sufficiently analogous to Kimball of “reformation” to support way to require the same result.5 Ms. Buffetta approach which we the statute before us. asked for the to be in her name and Even where defendant insurance compa- received notices referencing policy limits. nies have violated the policy notice re- paid She premiums based on those limits quirements of the Pennsylvania MVFRL, that were obviously less if the unin- the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has de- $100,000 had been clined to provide a remedy for the insured $25,000. instead the stated by, for example, construing While we concede against that a argu- Instead, the insurer. the court has ment could be made to the effect that strictly adhered to the statutory language, new named always and, insured should have his where no remedy provided, it has or her voice count as to whether a reduced refused Salazar, to create one. See uninsured motorist coverage requested, 1044; A.2d at Donnelly, A.2d at 454.6 Interestingly, reasoning father, one towas Ms. Buffetta's the Groff *8 upon cases relied by Pennsylvania the Superi- presented. situation is The court in Kimball Court led it have to different result also relied by a case decided the Court (although here). not one that would follow In of County Pleas of Common York that refer- v. Continental policy, Groff F.Supp. ences a coverage” "one reality, one (E.D.Pa.1990), Judge Huyettheld noting that if different insureds differ- desire that where one named insured had executed a coverages, they ent opt sepa- should to have authorization, the other had policies. rate See 660 A.2d 1387- not, person a third insured policy, under the (discussing Liberty Mitt. Fire Ins. Co. v. insured, not a named would by be bound the Lindsey, (Pa.Com.Pl. 3 Pa. D. & C.4th 659 However, reduction. the court that a noted 1989)). presented dilemma would be ally claiming if one the actu- the was one of the Judge Caputo the District Court for the named insureds. id. See at 548-49. In Kim- Middle Pennsylvania recently ex- ball, Pennsylvania Superior the Court did not amined the difference require- the between concern itself at all with the fact that the waiving, ments for reducing, and for UIM plaintiff injured who was seeking coverage noted this trend as well: be relieved of the reduction was in fact a named insured had not who executed a form Recent Supreme decisions the Court of Here, authorizing the reduction. Pennsylvania since the suggested have unwilling- ample opportunity with named insured diversity, we in sitting federal court As a having policy, the coverage the alter create reluctant especially be should of the notice ongoing received legisla- state the neither that rights new having paid policy, and under her fit to have seen courts ture nor state coverage limits such that took premiums Aeronautics See, e.g., Keystone recognize. by the account, bound cover- she was into 146, 499 F.2d Corp., v. R.J. Enstrom Corp. previous named by the made age choices as- Cir.1974) “our (3d that (noting the policy. insured under form not to predict role is to signed law”). the order AFFIRM state will Accordingly, we Court. of the District the Salazar addition, that note, in We express concern opinions Donnelly STAPLETON, J., dissenting: us, before by the issue implicated policies respectfully dissent. I over concern legislative namely, insurance, of automobile increasing costs scheme a rational In fashion order in Court Supreme which pertaining Pennsylvania statutes from the poli- public “the Donnelly characterized mo- insured voluntary uninsured/under interpret- when to be advanced cy which I that coverage, predict torist statutory ing that hold would Court A.2d at 452. Donnelly, 720 1731(a) MVFRL.” Cons.Stat. 75 Pa. “[u]nder a rem- not it would reasoning that coverage is auto- (1997), amount of UM in the forth specifically set edy not injury of bodily equal to matically part in relied MVFRL, Donnelly effectively exer- the insured policy unless policy considerations: on waive such lower or option to cises the fashion a Illi- were to Co. Court Indem.
If this Travelers coverage.” 168, DiBartolo, expressly 171 F.3d nois essentially MVFRL, Further, would Cir.1999). I think it clear this cost containment exercise an effective to be contravene for there order allowing because MVFRL the UM option to lower behind full tort a written appellants be there must appellant giving Cons.Stat. would result 75 Pa. insured.” seek “a named has (1999). no individual is- which difficult something for The more §Ann. in in- turn, principles result would these paid, which how presented sue this extra passing Pennsylvania Su- companies surance applied be setting all insureds. other factual cost preme common. case, quite that must one noted, Penn- weAs have Id. at 454. in Kimball Superior Court sylvania Saverio July Prior to here, concerned, must be as we similarly under Nation- insured named the sole by ruling he While No. 5837B93654. wide’s which receive insured, in writ- he elected was the paid. his coverage lower UM ing to have he July limits. On Penn- that the predict
Accordingly, we policy, in the any interest ceased to *9 hold would Supreme Court sylvania Buffetta, purchased having and Rosetta covered named insured was where the new orally re- having from Saverio car when the existing policy cov- the insurance continuation quested effected, and became reduction Auto. Ins. Mut. Farm Leymeister v. State high court to part of the State's on the ness (M.D.Pa.2000) F.Supp.2d 272 n. that de- interpretations statutory entertain text, at Donnelly, 720 A.2d discussing where (citing 453-54, even part the letter from 1044). Salazar, without redress plaintiff is left A.2d the statute. injury vehicle, erage on that became the sole
named insured. Because a pur- central
pose of the statutory scheme is to focus
the attention of a real party interest on
the issue of how much UM coverage secured,
should be I believe the Pennsylva-
nia hold that Na- responsibilities
tionwide’s to Rosetta were
the same as would have been had she
applied a new policy, given that she neither waiver nor
form. I would hold that Rosetta’s UM cov-, equal to her
erage.
I find this materially situation different involved where a
daughter became an additional named in-
sured on her mother’s her
mother’s earlier election reduced UM
coverage continued to effective UM
coverage limits of the policy. mother’s
UNITED America, STATES BROOKS, Appellant
Lawrence
in No. 98-7419.
In re Brooks, Lawrence Petitioner
in No. 99-8043. 98-7419,
Nos. 99-8043.
United States Appeals, Court of
Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 2000.
Filed Oct.