This class action concerns uninsured or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in personal auto policies issued by Geico Choice Insurance Company in Pennsylvania under the state’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). The complaint alleges that Geico charged customers premiums for “stacked” UIM coverage, even when only one vehicle was insured, thus making stacking impossible.
The class for this action is all persons to whom Geico issued a single-vehicle insurance policy in accordance with the MVRRL, where (1) the person’s household owned only one vehicle, (2) the person had a Geico policy in Pennsylvania, (3) Geico knew or should have known that the person had only one vehicle and that there were no other vehicles or policies in the household, (4) the policy provided for stacked UIM coverage, (5) Geico charged an additional premium for the stacked coverage, (6) the stacked coverage was not actually available, (7) the person paid the additional premium for the stacked coverage, and (8) the person is entitled to a refund of premiums for the stacking coverage that did not exist.
The plaintiff in this case, Isiah A. Jones, III, had an insurance policy with Geico that provided for $100,000/$300,000 of stacked UIM coverage for one motor vehicle. Stacking allows insureds to potentially collect more in case of an accident by combining the UIM coverage of more than one vehicle.
The complaint quotes the MVFRL as saying, “The limits of coverage available [with stacking] for an insured shall be the sum of the limits for each motor vehicle as to which the injured person is an insured.” However, the complaint alleges, Jones owned only one vehicle, so that stacking was not possible.
Despite this, the complaint alleges, Geico offered Jones stacking without telling him that no stacking was available with only a single vehicle in his household. It then charged him additional amounts in his premium for the non-existent stacked coverage.
The complaint alleges that, in earlier times, if a person such as Jones was injured as a guest passenger in a vehicle that was not part of his household, and he recovered UIM insurance benefits from both the vehicle he was riding in and his own vehicle, this was inter-policy stacking, and it justified an additional premium on his policy.
However, the complaint cites a 2008 court case, Generette v. Donegal, in which the Supreme Court found that this was not inter-policy stacking but priority of recovery, and that inter-policy stacking involves only the policies of a single household.
The complaint alleges, “Despite being aware that a single-vehicle policy issued to an individual with no other household vehicles or policies provided no stacking benefit, Geico continued to issue such policies and charge a premium for a coverage benefit not provided by the policy.”
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Insurance
Most Recent Case Event
Geico Choice Insurance Nonexistent “Stacked” UIM Coverage Pennsylvania Complaint
February 11, 2022
This class action concerns uninsured or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in personal auto policies issued by Geico Choice Insurance Company in Pennsylvania under the state’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). The complaint alleges that Geico charged customers premiums for “stacked” UIM coverage, even when only one vehicle was insured, thus making stacking impossible.
Geico Choice Insurance Nonexistent “Stacked” UIM Coverage Pennsylvania ComplaintCase Event History
Geico Choice Insurance Nonexistent “Stacked” UIM Coverage Pennsylvania Complaint
February 11, 2022
This class action concerns uninsured or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in personal auto policies issued by Geico Choice Insurance Company in Pennsylvania under the state’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). The complaint alleges that Geico charged customers premiums for “stacked” UIM coverage, even when only one vehicle was insured, thus making stacking impossible.
Geico Choice Insurance Nonexistent “Stacked” UIM Coverage Pennsylvania Complaint