Progressive Advanced “Stacked” UIM Coverage Pennsylvania Class Action

This class action brings suit against Progressive Advanced Insurance Company for charging customers for “stacked coverage” in households in Pennsylvania which have no other vehicles, and where stacking is therefore not possible.

Stacking of uninsured and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage is permitted under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).

The complaint quotes the law as saying, under “Limit for each vehicle,” “When more than one vehicle is insured under one or more policies providing uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, the stated limits for uninsured or underinsured coverage shall apply separately to each vehicle so insured. The limits of coverage available under this subchapter for an insured shall be the sum of the limits for each motor vehicle as to which the injured person is an insured.”

In other words, the “stacking” refers to the adding of UIM coverages for multiple vehicles. If a person owns only one vehicle, there is nothing to be stacked.

However, the complaint alleges that Progressive Advanced offered UIM stacking coverage to customers that owned only one vehicle. It also offered them the opportunity to waive stacking coverage, the complaint claims, but “did not advise” the customers “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.” Progressive Advanced then went ahead and charged them for stacking coverage which they would in fact not have.

The complaint refers to an earlier court case which determined that the only coverages that can be stacked are coverages for vehicles in the same household. If vehicles from different households are involved, the court ruled that that is not stacking but priority of coverage.

The class for this action is all persons to whom Progressive Advanced issued a single-vehicle insurance policy in accordance with the MVFRL, and where

• the person owned only a single vehicle with no other vehicles in the household;
• the person was issued a motor vehicle policy by Progressive Advanced in Pennsylvania providing coverage in accordance with the MVRFL;
• Progressive Advanced knew or should have known that the person owned only one motor vehicle;
• Progressive Advanced knew or should have known there were no other vehicles or policies in the person’s household;
• the policy provided stacked UIM coverage;
• Progressive Advanced charged the person an additional premium for the stacked UIM coverage;
• the stacked UIM coverage benefit was not available since there was no intra-policy stacking benefit under the policy;
• the person paid an additional premium for the stacked UIM coverage; and
• the person is entitled to a return of premiums for stacked UIM coverage from Progressive Advanced for the nonexistent stacked coverage benefit.

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