Geico Casualty Nonexistent Stacking UIM Coverages Pennsylvania Class Action

Under some circumstances, it is possible to “stack” coverage under insurance policies relating to uninsured or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverages. This class action brings suit against Geico Casualty Company, alleging it charges customers higher premiums for stacked policies, even where there are no other vehicles in the household whose insurance could be stacked. This case covers policies issued in accordance with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).

The plaintiff in this case, Michael Purcell, Jr., had a personal auto policy with Geico Casualty. The policy had $15,000/$30,000 of stacked UIM coverage. In the event of an accident, stacked coverage like this allows insureds to draw on the UIM coverages of more than one vehicle.

Purcell’s $15,000/$30,000 coverage means that his insured vehicle has $15,000 worth of UIM coverage, but that if he is injured by an uninsured or underinsured motorist, he may stack his $15,000 worth of coverage with the $15,000 worth of coverage on another vehicle in his household to draw on $30,000 worth of benefits.

The problem is, there is no other vehicle in Purcell’s household and therefore no other policy with UIM benefits for him to stack.

Purcell thus had a policy that allowed stacking, even though that benefit was not available to him. The complaint alleges that Geico “did not advise the plaintiff, Purcell … that there [] was no stacking coverage benefit available under any of these single vehicle policies since there were no other motor vehicles or policies in the household.”

The complaint refers to an earlier case where the courts held, it says, that “stacking involves only household policies; recovering additional uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits under non-household policies is not stacking of coverages, but rather priority of coverage.” The additional premium charged to Purcell for stacking, the complaint contends, is therefore not justified where no additional household vehicle policies exist.

The class for this action is all persons

• Who owned a single vehicle with no other vehicles or policies in the household,
• Who were issued a Geico Casualty single-vehicle policy in Pennsylvania in accordance with MVFRL,
• Where Geico knew, or should have known, that the persons each had only a single vehicle, and that there were no other vehicles in the household,
• Where the Geico policies issued to the persons provided for stacked UIM coverage,
• Where Geico charged an additional premium for the stacked coverage,
• Where the persons paid an additional premium for the stacked coverage,
• Where the stacked coverage was not available to the persons, and
• Where the persons are entitled to a return of premiums for this nonexistent coverage.

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