When a new vehicle is added to an existing insurance policy, does the insurance company need to get a new election of lower uninsured or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage than the state requires? The complaint for this class action says it does, and brings suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for reducing coverage without this election.
In Pennsylvania, the complaint says, UIM coverage under auto policies “is required to be provided in the same amount as liability coverage unless the named insured requests lower limits” for that coverage. The insured is allowed to request these lower limits in writing.
The State Farm auto insurance policy in this case was issued to Kevin Iwanski and Karen Iwanski, parents of the plaintiff, Miranda Geist. When the policy was issued, on March 10, 2010, Kevin Iwanski chose $50,000/$100,000 as an election of lower limits.
On December 31, 2010, a third vehicle was added to the policy; Iwanski signed an Election of $50,000/$100,000 in UIM coverage; and State Farm issued a new number for the policy with a new Declarations page.
On January 8, 2011, he had a vehicle removed from the policy.
On February 28, 2013, he added a third vehicle. The complaint alleges, “Upon the addition of a third vehicle to the State Farm Policy on February 28, 2013, State Farm did not obtain a new election of lower limits of underinsured motorist coverage from the named insured, Kevin Iwanski.” The company renewed the policy every six months after that.
On September 16, 2017, Miranda Geist, who was covered by the policy, was a passenger in another motor vehicle when it was at fault in an accident. Geist was seriously injured. The other vehicle was insured by Progressive Insurance Company under a policy that provided only $15,000/$30,000 liability coverage. This was not enough to pay for Geist’s injuries.
Geist contends in this she should be able to get $200,000 in UIM benefits for the stacked $100,000/$300,000 coverage for the two vehicles under the State Farm policy. But State Farm says Geist can only recover $100,000 for the stacked coverage because of the lower UIM coverage Iwanski elected. Yet Geist contends that, for the new vehicle, no election of lower coverage was made.
The class for this action is persons (1) who were insureds or named insureds under a State Farm policy issued in accordance with Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) (2) who were injured in motor vehicle accidents as a result of the negligence of an uninsured or underinsured motorist, (3) who made a claim on State Farm for UIM benefits, (4) where the State Farm policy had an election of lower limits of UIM coverage, (5) but where a new vehicle had been added with no new election of reduced lower limits of UIM coverage, and (6) where State Farm did not provide the higher limits of coverage.
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Insurance
Most Recent Case Event
State Farm Mutual No Election of Lower Coverage Pennsylvania Complaint
October 8, 2021
When a new vehicle is added to an existing insurance policy, does the insurance company need to get a new election of lower uninsured or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage than the state requires? The complaint for this class action says it does, and brings suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for reducing coverage without this election.
State Farm Mutual No Election of Lower Coverage Pennsylvania ComplaintCase Event History
State Farm Mutual No Election of Lower Coverage Pennsylvania Complaint
October 8, 2021
When a new vehicle is added to an existing insurance policy, does the insurance company need to get a new election of lower uninsured or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage than the state requires? The complaint for this class action says it does, and brings suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for reducing coverage without this election.
State Farm Mutual No Election of Lower Coverage Pennsylvania Complaint