Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-0562 CivilPENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff GEORGE WILLIAM MANUEL, SR., MARGARET MANUEL and TAMMI JO MANUEL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-562 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., HESS and OLER, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and accompanying opinion, the motion is denied. Peter J. Speaker, Esq. 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff for the reasons stated in the BY THE COURT, Gregory M. Feather, Esq. 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17110-1177 Attorney for Defendants PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Vo GEORGE WILLIAM MANUEL, SR., MARGARET MANUEL and TAMMI JO MANUEL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-562 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., HESS and OLER, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., April 25, 2001. In this declaratory judgment action brought by an automobile insurance company against several insureds who were involved in an accident, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the applicable insurance policy does not provide for stacking of underinsured motorist coverage in Defendants' favor. For disposition at this time is a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Plaintiff. Because the pleadings disclose a dispute as to a material issue of fact, the motion will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS; PROCEDURAL HISTORY This declaratory judgment action was commenced by the f'fling of a complaint on January 26, 2001. Plaintiff is an automobile insurance company which issued a policy covering various motor vehicles owned by a certain electrical service company for which Defendant George William Manuel, Sr., worked.~ While operating one of the vehicles, Defendant was involved in an ~ Plaintiff's Complaint, paras. 3, 6 and 8; Defendants' Answer with New Matter (hereinafter Defendants' Answer), paras. 3, 6 and 8 accident in which he and two family members, Defendants Margaret Manuel and Tammi Jo Manuel, were allegedly injured? Under the insurance policy, underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $35,000.00 was provided with respect to each listed vehicle.3 Stacking of this coverage was provided for in certain circumstances.4 An increased premium was charged by Plaintiff for the stacking endorsement.5 Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the benefit of the stacking provision was reserved for named insureds and family members of named insureds.6 It avers that none of the allegedly injured parties was a named insured or family member of a named insured.7 It concludes that, although Defendants were insureds for certain purposes under the policy by virtue of their occupancy of a covered vehicle at the time of the accident, they were not within the class entitled to the benefit of the stacking provision of the policy.8 In the copy of the policy attached to the complaint, a page entitled DECLARATIONS [balance of title indecipherable] identifies the named insured as General Electrical Service Co Inc.9 A "Special Named Insured Endorsement" states that "the person(s) or organization(s) named in the Declarations of this policy is(are) as follows: GENERAL ELECTRICAL SERVICE CO INC AND/OR GENERAL ELECTRICAL SERVICE & SALES COMPANY[.]''t° An endorsement entitled "Pennsylvania--Named Individuals--Broadened First Party Benefits" contains no designation in the primary block for Named Plaintiff's Complaint, para.7; Defendants' Answer, para. 7. PlaintiWs Complaint, para. 9; Defendants' Answer, para. 9. Plaintiff's Complaint, para. 14; Defendants' Answer, para. 14. Defendants' Answer, para. 22; PlaintiWs Reply to New Matter, para. 22. Plaintiff's complaint, para. 14. Id., para. 15. Id., Exhibit A. 9Id. 2o Id. 2 Insured, and modifies the policy as to its Pennsylvania Basic First Party Benefit" provision by means of a "Schedule" listing the names of four individuals having the surname of Rode.~ An endorsement with the heading "Pennsylvania Underinsured Motorists Coverage--Stacked" contains no designation in the block for Named Insured, and includes the following language with respect to stacking of underinsured motorist coverage: Except as provided in the following paragraph, the most we will pay for all damages resulting from any one "accident" is the Limit Of Insurance for Underinsured Motorists Coverage shown in the Schedule or Declarations regardless of the number of covered "motor vehicles", "insureds", premiums paid, claims made or vehicles involved in the "accident". However, if "bodily injury" is sustained in an "accident" by you or any "family member", and there is more than one covered "motor vehicle", our maximum limit of liability for all damages in any such "accident" is the sum of the limits applicable to each covered "motor vehicle". Subject to our maximum limit of liability for all damages, the most we will pay for "bodily injury" sustained in such "accident" by an "insured" other than you or any "family member" is the Limit Of Insurance for Underinsured Motorists Coverage shown in the Schedule or Declarations for the covered "motor vehicle" the "insured" was "occupying" at the time of the "accident". This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of covered "motor vehicles", "insureds", premiums paid, claims made or vehicles involved in the "accident".~2 Under this endorsement, a "family member" is defined as "a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household, including a ward or foster child.''~3 A page entitled "Business Auto Coverage ~ Plaintiff's Complaint, Exhibit A. In small print at the bottom of the page, these individuals were included within the class of named insureds for purposes of the policy's first party benefits provision. Id. 1318. Form" provides that "[t]hroughout this policy the words 'you' and 'your' refer to the Named Insured shown in the Declarations?4 Defendant's answer with new matter avers that Defendant George William Manuel, Sr., was in fact named as an insured on the policy, as a consequence of which he and the members of his family were entitled to the benefit of stacked underinsured motorist coverage,is The allegations of Defendants in this respect are as follows: 17. George William Manuel, Sr., is a specifically intended beneficiary of the policy by virtue of his designated insured status. 18. The initial copy of the policy provided to Defendants by Plaintiff, Penn National, included a sheet listing all drivers with their driver's license numbers and dates of birth. A copy [of] the policy initially provided to Defendants is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A." Although included in Exhibit "A," a copy of the driver sheet is attached separately as Exhibit "B." 19. Plaintiff, Penn National, neglected to include a copy of the aforementioned sheet listing all drivers with the copy of the policy provided to the Court. 20. By virtue of being a designated insured under the policy, George William Manuel, Sr., is a "class one" insured and is therefore entitled to stack UIM coverages. 21. The operators listed on the drivers sheet included in the policy are intended beneficiaries since the actual named insured, a corporation, cannot possibly sustain bodily injury. 16 In its reply to the allegations of Defendants' pleading, Plaintiff avers that the policy did not include the list in which Defendant George William Manuel, Sr., was named,i? To the contrary, according to Plaintiff's reply, the list was provided 14Id' ~5 Defendants' Answer, paras. 17 and 20. 16 Defendants' Answer with New Matter, paras. 17-21. 17 Plaintifffs Reply to New Matter, paras. 18-19. 4 to Plaintiff for purposes of risk assessment as opposed to designation of insureds. The responsive averments of Plaintiff in this respect are as follows: 17. Denied. It is denied that George William Manuel, Sr., is a specifically intended beneficiary of the policy by virtue of his designated insured status. It is specifically denied that [he] has the status of designated insured. 18. Denied. It is denied that the initial copy of the policy provided to Defendants by Plaintiff, Penn National, included a sheet listing all drivers with their driver's license numbers and dates of birth. It is specifically denied that Exhibit A to Defendants' Answer is a copy of the policy initially provided to Defendants. It is denied that the policy was provided to Defendants at all; rather, the policy was provided to the named insureds. It is averred further that Exhibit A to Defendants' Answer is not a correct copy of the policy provided initially to the named insureds. Some of the documents are not part of the policy; some of them are dated after the beginning of the policy period; and some parts of the policy are not included. A true and correct copy of the complete policy that was in effect at the time of the accident is attached to the Complaint as "Exhibit A." By way of further answer, the driver sheet is merely a document that is provided by the named insured to its agent who in turn provides it to Penn National so that Penn National can determine properly whether to agree to underwrite liability coverage and/or specifically exclude certain bad drivers from liability coverage. 19. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the "driver sheet" was not included in the copy of the policy that was attached to the Complaint. It is denied that the driver sheet is a part of the policy. It is denied that Penn National, therefore, "neglected" to include a copy of it in the copy of said policy. 20. Denied. It is denied that George William Manuel, Sr., is a designated insured under the policy. It is denied that he is a "class one" insured and is therefore entitled to stack UIM coverages. 21. Denied. It is denied that the operators listed on the driver sheet are intended beneficiaries since the actual named insured, a corporation, cannot possibly sustain bodily injury. The foregoing replies are incorporated herein. Furthermore, it 5 is averred that certain individuals, including Michael L. Rode, Karen Rode and Betty M. Rode were named individuals specifically afforded broadened coverage under the policy in accordance with the terms thereof. ~8 After the pleadings were closed, Plaintiff filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings sub judice. DISCUSSION "A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only where the pleadings demonstrate that no genuine issue of fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Insurance Co. of Evanston v. Bowers, 758 A.2d 213,215 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). A court reviewing such a motion "must accept as true all well-pleaded facts of the party against whom the motion is made, while considering against him only those facts which he specifically admits." Id. In the present case, the pleadings diverge factually on the issues of whether the "driversheet" containing the name of Defendant George William Manuel, Sr., was a part of the insurance policy in question, and, if it was, what its intended import was in terms of named insureds. Under these circumstances, the court is of the view that a final disposition of the case on the theory that the pleadings show with certainty that Defendants' position is meritless would not be appropriate. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is deniedl BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter, paras. 17-21. 6 Peter J. Speaker, Esq. 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory M. Feather, Esq. 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17110-1177 Attorney for Defendants 7