Progressive Specialty No UIM Benefits for Unstacked Coverage Pennsylvania Class Action

Michael J. Ford was riding his Honda motorcycle in Hilltown Township in Pennsylvania when he was hit by a driver making a left turn into his path. Because the other driver’s insurance did not have sufficient coverage to pay for his injuries, Ford is trying to get uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from one of his own insurers, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company. Progressive has rejected his claim.

The accident occurred on August 13, 2020. The complaint alleges that the other driver, Steven A. Johnson, was intoxicated at the time. Ford had serious and permanent injuries as a result of the accident.

Johnson’s policy offered $15,000/$30,000 in liability coverage. Ford received the $15,000 payout, but it was not enough to compensate him for his injuries.

Ford had two policies of his own. The motorcycle policy, issued by Progressive Preferred Insurance Company in accordance with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRS), paid Ford its $25,000 limit, but it was still not enough.

Ford’s second policy, his Personal Auto Policy, issued by Progressive Specialty in accordance with the Pennsylvania MVFRS, offered $250,000/$500,000 in unstacked UIM benefits for two vehicles. However, when he made a, Progressive Specialty rejected it. The company stated the policy did not provide stacked UIM coverage and that there was a household regular use exclusion.

The complaint argues against these reasons. First, it says, the Limits of Liability language for non-stacked coverage applies only to intra-policy (as opposed to inter-policy) stacking.

Second, the complaint quotes the Other Insurance part of the policy to assert the maximum recovery should be the $250,000 limit on the second policy.

Finally, it claims that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that the waiver of stacking used by Pennsylvania insurers “does not waive inter-policy stacking under multiple vehicle policies…”

The complaint therefore asserts that Ford’s second insurance policy “provided inter-policy stacking of underinsured motorist benefits at the time of the August 13, 2020 motor vehicle accident.

Two classes have been defined for this action:

• The first is persons who are insureds under policies issued by Progressive Specialty, who were injured in motor vehicle accidents caused by the negligence of an uninsured or underinsured motorist, but who were denied UIM benefits because of (1) the unstacked coverage of their policies, or (2) the household regular use exclusion.
• The second is persons (1) who were injured in a motor vehicle accident in a household vehicle, (2) who were insured under a policy with UIM coverage, in accordance with the MVFRL for a vehicle in the household, (3) where the Progressive Specialty policy in the household provided for inter-policy stacking of UIM benefits by election or law, (4) who made a claim under the household policy for UIM benefits, and (5) whose claim was denied because of unstacked coverage or the household regular-use exclusion.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Insurance
Tags: Auto Insurance, Denial of Benefits, Insurance, UM/UIM Coverage