Geico Advantage Premiums for Nonexistent Stacking Pennsylvania Class Action

This class action concerns auto insurance, specifically “stacked” uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage with Geico Advantage Insurance Company. The complaint alleges that the insureds have been paying higher premiums for stacked coverage, even though they had only one insured vehicle each, so that no stacking was possible. The law governing the policies is Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).

Stacking refers to the ability to combine UIM coverage from more than one auto policy in the event of an accident. Stacking is not possible if only one auto insurance policy exists in the household.

The stacked policy in question provided for $100,000/$300.000 in UIM coverage. This means that the policy itself provided only $100,000 in UIM coverage, but that it could be combined with other policies on other vehicles in the household for up to $300,000 in UIM coverage.

Premiums on policies that provide for stacking are higher than on those that don’t. But even if a person owns multiple vehicles, so that stacking is possible, that person does not have to choose to have stacked policies. A person who does not want to pay the premiums for stacked coverage can waive stacking.

The complaint quotes an earlier court case as saying that the law’s “references to multiple vehicles merely acknowledges that stacking is only possible when an insured possesses UIM coverage for multiple vehicles. Therefore, for practical purposes, [the law’s subsection on stacking] only requires insurance companies to offer stacking waivers when an insured obtains UIM coverage for multiple vehicles.”

In this case, the complaint alleges that Geico offered stacking to the insureds in this case and also offered them waivers on stacking, even though no stacking was possible. The complaint claims Geico did not explain to them that no stacking would be possible in any case, but it went on to charge them higher premiums for stacking.

According to the complaint, at an earlier time, a question existed about the possibility of stacking UIM coverage among non-household vehicles, but it was resolved by a Supreme Court decision that found that this would not be inter-policy stacking but a priority of coverage situation. Since that decision, the complaint alleges, stacking has only been possible among the vehicles in the insured’s own household.

The class for this action is all persons to whom Geico issued a single motor vehicle according to the MVFRL, where

• The person owned only one motor vehicle and there were no other motor vehicle policies in the household,
• The policies were issued by Geico in Pennsylvania,
• Geico knew or should have known that the insured owned only one vehicle,
• Geico knew or should have known that the household had no other vehicles or motor vehicle insurance policies,
• The policies nevertheless provided for stacked UIM coverage,
• Geico charged an additional premium for stacked coverage,
• The stacked coverage under the policy was not available,
• The person paid the additional premium for the stacking, and
• The person is entitled to the return of premiums for the nonexistent stacking coverage.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Insurance
Tags: Auto Insurance, Insurance, Stacking, UM/UIM Coverage