Rudloff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

it denied her motion to remove the non-

suit.

¶ 23 Order affirmed. RUDLOFF, Appellee,

Elizabeth

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, Appellant.

Superior Pennsylvania. 27,

Argued June 2002. Sept.

Filed

1271 struck her vehicle from be- other vehicle insurance benefits available hind. The insuf- policies tortfeasors’ were under the for her compensate Appellee ficient and, therefore, sought damages Appellee automo- to collect benefits under her Haggerty, Philadelphia, for James C. with Hanover Insur- policy bile insurance appellant. de- Ostensibly, Hanover Company.1 ance Wheeler, Philadelphia, ap- Jonathan benefits, claim for Appellee’s nied pellee. proceeded the matter to arbitration. SOLE, P.J., Before: DEL FORD arbitration resulted an award of STEVENS, ELLIOTT, JOYCE, $77,500 Appellee’s against favor and MUSMANNO, MELVIN, LALLY- ORIE indicates party’s Hanover. Neither brief GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, JJ. amount, any paid Hanover or whether thereof, to part Appellee. BENDER, BY OPINION J.: ¶ 1 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Com- ¶ However, Appel- is clear is that what pany appeals granted from the order $77,5000 sought to collect subsequently lee (Appellee) Elizabeth Rudloffs Petition to policy through an automobile insurance Award, Confirm Arbitration which award Rudloff, father, carried that her Steven $77,500 was for underinsured motorist is not a named with Nationwide. (UIM) Appellee’s benefits in favor and although, policy insured under her father’s against Nationwide. The order also de- household, in his relative2 nied Nationwide’s Petition to Vacate is entitled to benefits under the she Modify the Award. Nationwide and/or policy.3 policy provides UIM benefits trial claims court erred deter- $100,000. Appellee’s Nationwide denied mining that the exclusion in its claim for benefits on the basis of house- was void as hold exclusion that states: public policy of this Commonwealth. case, Upon the facts of this conclude we EXCLUSIONS COVERAGE household exclusion Nation- wide’s does not violate public apply does not to: This and, therefore, the exclusion is a valid bar Appellee’s claim for UIM benefits from Accordingly, Nationwide. we reverse. Bodily injury suffered while occu- a motor vehicle owned pying ¶ 2 multiple This case arises from a ve- you or a relative but insured was during hicle accident which motorist cover- for underinsured Ap- operating a vehicle that she owned. policy; under this nor to bodi- injuries age suffered serious when an- pellee blood, marriage adoption you by or "for related to 1. UIM is defined as child). injury arising persons who suffer out of A (including a ward or foster relative a motor vehicle and maintenance or use of your may temporarily house- live outside damages legally there- are entitled to recover (R.R.) at 150a. Reproduced hold.” Record operators owners or of underinsured for from 1731(c). § 75 Pa.C.S. motor vehicles.” policy provides 3.The R.R. at 287a. and relatives. named insured 2. The defines "relative” as household, regularly your “one who lives in ly injury being by any hit is such that had it been a verdict of a such motor jury vehicle. the court would have entered a judgment judgment different not- R.R. at 289a. withstanding the verdict. proceeded matter also to arbi- This tration, the arbitrators that the found 7302(d). § 42 Pa.C.S. When we review a foregoing against exclusion was invalid as affirm, modify trial decision to court’s public policy applies as the facts of .to award, an vacate arbitration this Court case. arbitrators awarded may reverse for an abuse of discretion $77,500 Appellee. Appellee filed a Peti- or an error of law. Bowersox v. Pro See tion to in the Confirm Arbitration Award Co., 1236, gressive A.2d Cas. Ins. 781 1238 Pleas, Court of and Nationwide Common (Pa.Super.2001). Modify filed a Petition to Vacate and/or ¶ 7 trial Both the arbitrators and the granted Appellee’s The court Award. court in this case that the exclu- concluded petition petition. and denied Nationwide’s question sion in is invalid under the cir- appeal raising Nationwide then filed this public policy. cumstances as it violates question one for our review: party Neither claims that the exclusion is Did Trial err in refusing Court- Nor do ambiguous. parties dispute unambiguous enforce a clear and house- express language that the of the exclusion in a personal hold exclusion auto operates Appellee’s recovery to bar plaintiff, operating where the who was Therefore, her own seeking insured is UIM benefits. the narrow recover motorist benefits underinsured question law us whether the before is under a issued to her father which trial that the determining court erred provided unstacked underinsured motor- against void as exclusion was ist for a vehicle not involved in public policy of our Commonwealth the accident? upon the facts of this case. Appellant Brief for at 3. ¶ Recently, required to 8 we were policy express 6 The Nationwide make a similar determination Old ly Pennsyl arbitration under the required Houck, Guard Ins. Co. v. 801 A.2d 559

vania Arbitration Act of 1927 for Guard, (Pa.Super.2002). In Old we sur disputes arising under the “Since veyed Supreme rulings our Court’s recent the insurance in the instant case on the household exclusion and noted that expressly provides pursuant for arbitration 1994, Paylor since when the Court decided 1927, to the Arbitration Act of the stan Co., 583, v. Ins. 536 Pa. 640 A.2d Hartford applicable proceeding of review dard “ (1994), ‘expanded applica 1234 it has modify or vacate an arbitration award is in three bility of the household exclusion’ 7302(d) at that set forth Section Guard, 801 A.2d subsequent cases.” Old 1980 Arbitration Nationwide Ins. Act[.]” (quoting at Eichelman v. Nationwide 563 Calhoun, 612, Pa.Super. 430 635 Co. Co., 558, 1006, Pa. 711 A.2d 1009 Ins. 551 (1993). 7302(d) 643, A.2d 646 Section (1998) (unanimous decision)) (citing Hart v. states: Co., 419, Ins. 541 Pa. 663 A.2d Nationwide (2) applicable a paragraph Where this (1995); Windrim v. Nationwide Ins. reviewing court in an arbitration award (1994)). Co., In 537 Pa. 641 A.2d shall, subchapter to this not- pursuant that the Paylor, the Court stated house withstanding any provision of this generally hold exclusion is invalid as subchapter, modify or correct the award contrary against of the Motor Vehicle where the award is to law (MVFRL) Financial articulate a that would Responsibility Law 75 must §§ Pa.C.S. 1701-1799.7 by enforcement of the ex- be contravened facts of the case. Allowing “family clusion under the car exclusion” to bar plaintiff cases where Supreme cites to our attempting to convert cov- underinsured Paylor support Court’s decision erage liability coverage into is a limited argument the household exception to general rule that such in not violate the public this case does provisions are invalid poli- In policy underlying the MVFRL. Bur- cy of the MVFRL. stein, our Supreme Court reiterated Paylor, However, 640 A.2d at 1240. in public policy underlying the MVFRL that Guard, Old we concluded that the subse- Paylor: in previously had delineated quent decisions of our cul- Supreme Court repeal of the No-Fault Act and the minating in Eichelman indicated that the enactment of the MVFRL reflected a analysis validity court had shifted its con- legislative spiralling concern of a household exclusion to focus on con- sumer cost of automobile insurance and tract public policy: law and of the resultant increase the number Conspicuously Supreme absent from the on public uninsured motorists analysis any Court’s Eichelman legislative highways. The concern for mention of the presumption that the increasing cost of insurance is household exclusion was invalid as public policy that is to be advanced against public policy excep- and that an statutory interpretation of tion to this rule existed for cases in MVFRL. This reflects the General As- which a claimant sought to convert UIM sembly’s departure principle from the of Instead, liability benefits into benefits. maximum feasible restoration embodied the court stated “that a clear and un- in the now defunct No-Fault Act. ambiguous provision contract must be Burstein, (quotation 801 A.2d at 520 marks given plain meaning its unless to do added) omitted) (emphasis and footnote contrary clearly so would be a ex- 1235). Paylor, 640 A.2d at (quoting pressed public policy [and] this Court “[wjhile recog- that we court further noted is mindful is more public policies may nize that other underlie vague goal may than a which be used MVFRL, ‘legislative concern for plain meaning to circumvent spiralling consumer cost of automobile the contract.” overarching its dominant and insurance’ is Guard, Old at Ei (quoting A.2d Burstein, 801 A.2d at 520 public policy.” chelman, 1008) 711 A.2d add (emphasis at 1235). Paylor 640 A.2d at (quoting n. 3 ed). holding We remain with our in Old argues that the exclusion is a Guard that the absence of violation of foregoing public consistent with the policy, a public unambiguous clear and is a contract because the a mechanism household exclusion is valid agreed to underwrite wherein Nationwide limiting within an insur owned Steven and insure ance Burstein v. Pruden Accord in an exchange premium Rudloff in for a Co., Property tial Ins. 801 A.2d Cas. the risk associ- amount sufficient to cover (Pa.2002) (wherein Supreme our that vehicle. Nation- ated with the use of upheld relatively a similar exclusion on agree further that it did not argues wide basis that the exclusion did not violate with the use underwrite the risk associated public policy). Accordingly, party seek nor did it collect Appellee’s ing to circumvent the household exclusion premium Consequently, generally for such risk. Na- the fact that it is assumed that operates tionwide claims that the exclusion a person occupies the occasions on which limit exposure its risk contracted operates or a vehicle that he or she does for in the insurance which in turn slight compared are to the own when premium controls rates. person occupies occasions on which a or owns, operates a vehicle that he or she scope 10 The of the household person because the vehicle that a owns is this case narrow. As stated normally person’s primary source of above, a named in while is not transportation. policy, sured in the Nationwide she is entitled to benefits as- a nonetheless argu- 12 Nationwide articulates this relative her father’s household. normally ment terms of how it deter- Thus, were to have suffered her mines risk for based on injuries occupying operating while number of vehicles insured: friend, vehicle owned then she would premiums premised upon Insurance are have been entitled to UIM benefits under An anticipated risk. insurer determines policy. By Nationwide’s virtue of her sta risk, in part, upon number insured, tus as an the benefits fol UIM num- Increasing vehicles insured. the any to vehicle that lowed almost dramatically ber of covered vehicles in- occupied operated. she could have or Na and, thus, premiums. creases the risk tionwide contracted for this risk when it case, In this the household exclusion father’s vehicle. The insured her exclu are eliminates risk. Premiums set sion shields Nationwide from risk with the elimination of that risk in mind. Appellee’s operation associated with of a Disregarding household vehicle that she or a relative within the thereby materially changes the risk and household owns and that is not insured for necessary premium structure. coverage with Nationwide. UIM Thus, an Appellant Brief for at n. 6. ¶ 11 Ap- The Nationwide covered logically higher premi- insurer will demand provided him pellee’s father’s vehicle greater anticipated risk associ- ums any relative coverage, with UIM as well as providing ated with insurance that extends residing operated in his household who or coverage operating to insureds while UIM Furthermore, occupied the vehicle. they or a occupying or vehicles which rela- provided father and his rela- also yet own and are tive within household they coverage tives with UIM if suffered not insured for under the injuries occupying operating while or an- policy. insurer’s person’s vehicle. The household ex- analysis facet 13 Another of this risk clusion, however, limits this weighing the known factors process of cases where the father or relative own Clearly, factors. an versus the unknown it for yet vehicle and have not insured every relevant fact insurer will not have coverage with Nationwide. While it to underwrite known to when decides the risk associated Nationwide underwrote and, therefore, any particular risk insurers occupying or with father or his relatives invariably depen- risks that are underwrite he or a operating another vehicle which an unknown factors. But dent on some own, relative within his household did premium its attempt insurer will to base negligible compared when this risk is composed of the anticipated on an risk operating the risk associated with age of the in- known factors such as occupying or the vehicle she owned. sured, vehicle, and the type The difference these risks derives insured’s record. The prevent. the MVFRL strives to Such exclusion in this permits case Nationwide result is untenable.

to eliminate its an exposure to unknown Burstein, 801 A.2d at 520-21. factor, i.e., the number of cars owned point, 15 To illustrate one need members of the household and not insured only consider the situation where Nation- with Nationwide. Were Nationwide not person living wide insures a household permitted limit exposure by its risk wherein several relatives reside. Assum- exclusion, means of a household then it ing that provides the same surely would higher premiums demand coverage that it provided Appel- against expanded insure risk.4 policy, lee’s father’s each relative ¶ 14 As our Supreme recently within the household would also receive stated in Burstein: If policy. under the each light In primary public policy relative owns then there is a concern for the increasing costs of auto- greater multiple risk because there are insurance, mobile it is arduous to invali- vehicles, and each relative will more fre- date an otherwise valid insurance con- quently operate occupy a vehicle that he tract exclusion on account that public or she than a owns vehicle that he or she concern, however, This does not own. Without a valid household

will not any every validate exclusion, Nationwide would have unwit- exclusion; rather, it functions protect tingly underwritten a risk that is substan- insurers underwriting forced tially greater than the risk for which it unknown risks that insureds have nei- premium. collected Nationwide would ther paid Thus, disclosed nor to insure. responsible providing be for UIM benefits operationally, prevented insureds are to each if relative he or she were to be from receiving gratis coverage, and in- while or car his her own surers compelled are not to subsidize although pre- Nationwide collected unknown uncompensated risks mium to insure the risk associated increasing insurance comprehen- rates with the use of the one vehicle owned sively. Although the named insured. Nationwide providing also contracted for the risk of significantly, Most if this Court were to coverage UIM to the named insured and exclusion, void the insureds would be relatives, it did not far contract for the empowered to regularly drive an infinite greater providing coverage risk of UIM vehicles, number of non-owned and re- in regular each relative those relatives’ use gratis ceive coverage UIM on all of of that they the vehicles own. if they merely purchase those vehicles Supreme 16 Our Court addressed coverage UIM on one owned vehicle. in similar issue Eichelman when it stated: The same would be true if even Allowing the “household exclusion” lan- any regu- insureds never disclose used, in larly guage to stand this case is further non-owned vehicles to the insurers, as is the bolstered the intent behind the case here. Conse- MVFRL, quently, stop spiralling insurers in- costs of would be forced to insurance, crease the cost of insurance in the which is automobile Common- precisely what public policy appellant’s position behind If were ac- wealth. Indeed, questionable prac- it is it whether vehicles in the named insured's household tical for an insurer track number of that are not insured with the insurer. ability family allow an underinsured motorist

cepted, purchase would entire in living company household with numer- from an insurance single coverage obtain and “penalizes [Appel- ous automobiles to underinsured than Nationwide” family motorist for each mem- she coverage simply purchase because did not lee] through insurance on single ber automobile insurance from Nationwide.” fact, in one of the automobiles the household. point Brief at 11. In of Appellee for allowed, If this result were it would the exclusion in case has no household this likely higher most result restraining such effect. If a relative with- (even on those premiums all insureds Appellee’s father’s desired to living at their family without members he or with insure a vehicle that she owned residence) re- since insurers would be then at coverage, the relative was quired expanded coverage to factor liberty That makes this Appellee to do so. charged for cost into rates underin- rather when one argument incredible coverage. Thus, allow- sured motorist Appellee considers fact ing the exclusion” language “household coverage for the that she policies of the two insurance at issue to Company. owned from Hanover Insurance recovery by appellant bar underin- penalize Nor does the household exclusion motorist benefits is consistent sured because making that choice with the intent behind the enactment provided Appellee still Nationwide’s the MVFRL. though with UIM even she Eichelman, Hanover, but at 1010. In accord chased from A.2d extend to Supreme with our Court’s decisions Nationwide’s did not Eichelman, we of her Appellee’s operation occupation Burstein conclude Thus, enforcement the household exclusion vehicle. we find with- argument this this case furthers the under- out merit. the MVFRL.

lying ¶ Next, Appellee that the fact argues “fact contends Hano- she from purchase that Ms. [UIM] Rudloff did apart ver somehow sets case coverage from does not pres predecessors and its because Eichelman public a consideration which ent those had not cases claimants warrants enforcement of the household ex coverage on chased UIM the vehicles Appellee Again, Brief at 12. clusion.” for a they that this is owned. We conclude party seeking reiterate that it we Although distinction without difference. circumvent exclusion that household her Appellee for must articulate a that would vehicle, it from Hano- own she violated of the exclu be enforcement ver, voluntarily not Nationwide. She Burstein, 519; A.2d at Ei See 801 sion. carrier for chose as the insurance Hanover chelman, However, Ap- 711 1008. A.2d at paid coverage on her she argument does an that the pellee advance cover- premium Hanover a that UIM in this violates household exclusion case she age. fact that contracted with purported public policies than vehicle on her Hanover for the MVFRL dis policy underlying stated analysis has no on our of whether impact above. cussed exclusion for UIM Nationwide’s Nationwide, Hanover, ¶ is valid. It was not First, argues that enforce- 18 cover- premium for UIM in this received exclusion ment her Appellee’s use of age that covered policy because it public case is recently stated As this Court a resident relative’s vehicle. “places restraint on Group, McGovern v. Erie Insurance provi- 796 exclusion does not conflict with this A.2d 343 (Pa.Super.2002): sion of the MVFRL. repeatedly This court has denied UM ¶ 21 foregoing analysis, Based on our we or UIM where a claimant is conclude that enforcement of the house- seeking a “free per- ride” from another hold exclusion the circumstances of this policy. In large part, sonas case, public policy. does not violate Ac- upon these denials are the notion based cordingly, the trial court erred deter- fundamentally require that it is unfair to the household was mining provide an insurer coverage for a Appellee’s not a valid bar to claim for UIM specifically listed on a benefits from Nationwide. premium paid. and for which no was ¶ 22 Order REVERSED.

That applies equally rationale here. (citations McGovern, 796 A.2d at 346 omit- Judge 23 President DEL SOLE files a ted). it simply, Appellee To state did not Dissenting Opinion. Judge FORD purchase insurance that extended UIM joins. ELLIOTT coverage to her vehicle from Nationwide and, therefore, she cannot now claim that BY DEL DISSENTING OPINION she is entitled to those benefits. SOLE, P.J. ¶ Appellee also claims that en ¶ 1 disagree Majority’s ruling I with the forcement of the household exclusion in in this matter and would conclude under conflicts impermissibly this case with a the facts of this case that the household MVFRL, namely section of the 75 Pa.C.S. exclusion included the Nationwide 1733(a), § which states: was not a valid prevent Appellee bar to (a) General rule.—Where multiple poli- receiving UIM benefits under apply, payment cies shall be made I Majority believe the following priority: order of improperly upon prior relies decisions (1) A covering a motor vehicle upon significantly which were based differ- occupied by injured person at ent factual scenarios. the time of the accident. (2) A policy covering motor vehicle Majority question finds that the

not involved in the accident with presented in this case is similar to that respect to which person Houck, decided in Ins. Old Guard Co. is an insured. Super 801 A.2d 2002 PA It 1733(a). § Pa.C.S. argues prior further notes that Old Guard cited to Co., that Nationwide’s exclusion as to in v. [Ap- Paylor “[i]f decisions Ins. Hartford enforced, pellee] 583, (1994), priority pro- then the Pa. 640 A.2d 1234 536 Eichel Co., 558, vision set forth above is Pa. rendered mean- man v. Nationwide Ins. 551 (1998), ingless.” Brief for at 13. We 711 A.2d 1006 Hart v. Nationwide (1995) 419, disagree. foregoing provision The would Ins. Co. 541 Pa. 663 A.2d 682 Co., applicable be v. Nationwide Ins. were to have been and Windrim (1994). case, injured in a In friend’s car. such a Pa. 641 A.2d 1154 As further policy expressly ruling Majority Nationwide’s for its the offers provides support Thus, coverage to in Appellee. Supreme UIM the our Court’s recent decision policy pri- Property would and Cas. be second Burstein Prudential (Pa.2002). Co., ority Appellee’s recovery My of benefits. Ins. 801 A.2d 516 re Therefore, finds that none has we conclude the household view of these decisions Company. administratrix background pre-

a to that ance The of the factual similar in the instant case. sented estate the limits wife’s recovered liabili- ty coverage under the Foremost and ¶ prior uphold each a 3 These decisions to un- sought then recover UIM benefits exclu- unambiguous and clear by a Hartford Insurance der issued validi- coverage sion to valid. The UIM cars Company by on three other owned ty exclusion in cases these was In a car couple. upholding family the where the considered circumstances in the court Hartford the plaintiff attempting was either to convert coverage liability permit cover- “to decedent’s estate to underinsured into remarked: age, plaintiff pur- coverage the failed or where the ... recover underinsured in- coverage for the vehicle chase UIM allow the named insured’s estate to purchase accident volved the or failed inexpensively purchased underin- convert vehi- it in amount for other the family coverage motorist sured cles in the household. the liability coverage cars into on motor Paylor, A.2d at 1241. home.”

¶ Guard, 4 In the was a Old insured riding motorcycle collision while a insured ¶ appellant 6 In the was Eichelman by UIM cover- Guide One Insurance with riding motorcy- a truck his struck while $15,000. age of The insured received the motorcycle Aegis The was insured cle. insurer. policy limits from tortfeasor’s Security Company, but poli- Insurance cover- sought UIM Thereafter insured coverage. After cy did not include UIM age One Guard Insur- from Guide and Old liability receiving limits of benefits had in- Company through which she ance under truck owner’s insur- available owned her sured three vehicles ance, appellant sought to collect UIM coverage of her husband with and under Nationwide Insurance $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident. Company policy contained house- which exclusion contained The household exclusion, issued hold and which was to the policy was held enforceable. Old Guard husband, her appellant’s mother and with that, although specifically noted The court The court whom he resided. noted insureds had voluntarily chose appellant motorcycle, “they only purchased on the motorist and chase underinsured $15,000 court re- coverage.” pre- therefore received reduced marked, accept Appellant’s we to “[w]ere “[t]hus, held, miums. court position, family multiple with vehicles to the giving effect ‘house- concludes one insurer could insure one vehicle with case hold exclusion’ in this furthers high for a amount of UIM mo- underinsured legislative behind with another remaining insure the vehicles coverage in since it will torist the MVFRL coverage, minimum insurer for holding appellant to his the effect of have insurer yet recover from the former still Eichelman, 711 A.2d at voluntary choice.” inadequate prove benefits when the latter’s 1010. Guard, at an accident occurs.” Old when

¶ Similarly, Hart involved situation was his party where noted, our Old relied on 5 As Guard purchased for he had which own Paylor. in Supreme Court’s decision insurance, coverage, he but not when UIM Therein, killed in a husband and wife were injured by struck another driver. was traveling single car accident while in a home with his who resided party, by owned them and insured motor home policy limits from daughter, Insur- collected by issued Foremost policy under a the other driving coverage, driver’s insurance carrier and without UIM the Court sought coverage then a sepa- under negotiated advised that she could have policy rate of insurance issued to his employer purchase with her of such per daughter. The Supreme Court in a herself, coverage, purchased it or refused curiam order ruling reversed this Court’s to drive the car. which found the household exclusion in the ¶ 9 In each of these the party cases daughter’s policy void against public as Court cited to Windrim in its policy. The seeking recovery of UIM either benefits order. The driver in Windrim claimed purchase elected to not such benefits driving that while he was unin- his own themselves, them in an sured it by vehicle was struck a hit-and- amount less than that for other run driver. sought Windrim UIM cover- they vehicles owned. The concern these age policy by under a issued Nationwide to cases, that an individual will forgo elect to claiming his mother he was an insured purchase of UIM for insurance certain because he was a relative his they vehicles when have UIM on mother’s household. The Court found the another household does not hold household exclusion contained in the Na- true in pur- this case. Ms. Rudloff had enforceable, tionwide valid and re- liability, chased underinsured and unin- marking that its “conclusion is bolstered protection sured motorist from Hanover by the fact that argument, Windrim’s if $100,000 Company Insurance with limits to accepted, would actually contravene operating cover the car she owned and was legislative intent by behind the MVFRL at the time of the accident. serving aas disincentive to insure vehi- Windrim, cles.” 641 A.2d at 1158. The ¶ 10 Ms. Rudloff collected poli- both the Court noted that if it were to rule other- cy limits from the tortfeasor and the UIM wise, living relatives an with insured would sought from Hanover before she be purchase less inclined to insurance recovery of UIM benefits from Nationwide their rely vehicle and instead on coverage father, under a issued to her with from their relative’s insurance policy. $100,000 the same limits. par- Unlike the ¶ Finally, recently, most the Su- by Majority, ties the cases relied on preme Court had again occasion to consid- escape Ms. Rudloff did not seek to er an exclusion in Burstein. Therein the purchase coverage. She had injured parties company were chased UIM the same amount car, which did not have coverage, purchased by her father under the by when was hit a motorcycle. The motorcyclist’s policy. Nationwide It was when the company tendered the maximum amount payable under the amounts tendered the tortfeasor and liability limits of policy, its but the her own UIM were insufficient to parties fully compensated they were not so compensate' her that she turned to the sought to recover UIM benefits under In these circum- issued Prudential on vehi- three stances, recovery of UIM benefits under they cles which upheld owned. The Court the Nationwide is directed an for regularly used non-owned provisions provide which MVFRL vehicles. The Court commented that Mrs. Recovery: Priority under Burstein should have taken affirmative (a) multiple poli- General Rule—Where steps to determine employer- whether the apply, payment cies shall be made provided coverage. vehicle had If did accept following priority: she not wish to the risk of order of

(1) Rudloff, under her an insured father’s covering a motor vehicle policy A injured and I person policy, the at the is to UIM benefits occupied entitled exclusionary language time of the accident. believe the (2) to from policy prevent which seeks her covering a not policy A motor vehicle respect seeking express accident to benefits violates the involved with these an insured. person which the inured is of not be terms the MVFRL should upheld. § application 1733. Absent Pa.C.S.A. exclusion, it undisputed of the household is entitled to UIM bene- Ms. Rudloff

fits the Nationwide as a rela- under

tive her father’s household. Assembly in

The 75 Pa.C.S.A. General 1733(a)(2)

§ sought protection to offer Ms. Rudloff who seek recov- those such as Pennsylvania, of COMMONWEALTH covering a ery motor vehicle from Appellee, accident not under which involved they The exclusion under the are insured. facts not to bar operate of this case should MAGLIOCCO, Appellant. Eric J. contrary provi- to the

recovery express sions of the MVFRL. Superior Pennsylvania. of Further, application the exclusion Nov. Argued protect not seek to this case does 11, 2002. Sept. Filed in the same harms envisioned by Majority. cases cited purchase insur-

party in this case did in an amount purchased

ance. She

equal her father

his with Nationwide. The stated reducing increasing not en- support

costs does of insurance pres- the exclusion under the

forcement of facts, party seeking

ent where it on her purchase did own

benefits as an under

and seeks to recover insured exhausting after

her father’s that Ms. coverage.

her fact own UIM Hanover, coverage from

Rudloff Nationwide, likely from her father on the costs impacted overall to have sought Had she too

of insurance. Nationwide, it is most

chase have entitled

likely family would been insuring all as a reward for discount company. cars with same family’s facts Thus, I the distinct conclude application not warrant

of this case do Ms. Majority. cited

the case law

Case Details

Case Name: Rudloff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Sep 11, 2002

Citation: 806 A.2d 1270

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.