Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-562 Civil PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMP ANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW GEORGE WILLIAM MANUEL, SR., MARGARET MANUEL And TAMMI JO MANUEL, Defendants NO. 01-562 CIVIL TERM IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., November 10,2004. In this action for a declaratory judgment, an automobile insurance company seeks a declaration that Defendants may not stack underinsured motorists' coverage on a multi-vehicle policy issued by Plaintiff and, as a consequence, are entitled to a total of only $35,000.00 in such coverage. A nonjury trial was held before the undersigned judge on November 8,2004. F or the reasons stated in this opinion, the court will find in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff is Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, a mutual insurance company with headquarters located at 2 North Second Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants George William Manuel, Sr., Margaret Manuel and Tammi Jo Manuel are adult individuals residing at Unit 12, 2 East Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant George William Manuel, Sr., was at all times relevant to this case an employee of General Electrical Service Co., Inc., and/or General Electrical Service and Sales Company (hereinafter GE). 4. He was employed as an estimator for GE, and was not an officer of the company. 5. The other Defendants, Margaret Manuel and Tammi Jo Manuel, were members of Mr. Manuel's household. 6. A 1994 Buick Skylark (hereinafter the Buick) was provided by GE to Mr. Manuel for personal and business use. 7. The Buick was insured by Plaintiff, Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Penn National), pursuant to a policy issued to GE. 8. In connection with the policy, Michael L. Rode, an authorized officer of GE, executed a "Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Option Selection Sheet," electing an underinsured motorists' coverage limit of $35,000.00. 9. With regard to such coverage, he elected the "stacking" option. 10. In addition to providing for insurance on the Buick, the policy also provided for insurance on thirteen other vehicles of GE. 11. The annual premium for underinsured motorists coverage for each of five of the vehicles, including the Buick, was $17.00, and the premium for such coverage for each of the remaining nine vehicles was $ 7.00. 12. All premiums paid included charges for stacking. The higher premium for the Buick and four other vehicles was attributable to their utilization as personal as well as business vehicles. 13. A policy declaration identified the "Named Insured" as "General Electrical Service Co. Inc." 2 14. A "Special Named Insured Endorsement" identified "the person(s) or organization( s) named in the Declarations of [the] policy" as "General Electrical Service Co Inc and/or General Electrical Service & Sales Company." 15. In an endorsement entitled "Pennsylvania-Named Individuals- Broadened First Party Benefits," the policy extended "named insured" status for purposes of first party benefits to the following individuals: "Michael L. Rode, Karen R. Rode (spouse), Leo[n] M. Rode, and Betty M. Rode (spouse)." 16. The policy provided that "[t]hroughout this policy the words 'you' and 'your' refer to the Named Insured shown in the Declarations." 17. With specific reference to underinsured motorists' coverage, the policy defined "an insured" as (1) "you," (2) "[i]f you are an individual, any 'family member, ", (3) "[a]nyone else 'occupying' a covered 'motor vehicle, ", and (4) "[a]nyone for damages he or she is entitled to recover because of a 'bodily injury' sustained by another 'insured. ", 18. By its terms, the policy limited stacking with respect to underinsured motorists' coverage as follows: Except as provided in the following paragraph, the most we will pay for all damages resulting from anyone "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 3 covered "motor vehicles", "insureds", premiums paid, claims made or vehicles involved in the "accident". 19. A list of persons who would be driving the vehicles covered by the policy (hereinafter the driversheet) was provided by GE to Penn National. 20. The driversheet included the name ofMr. Manuel. 21. The driversheet was not part of the policy and was not designed to effect Mr. Manuel's inclusion as a named or designated insured for purposes of underinsured motorists' coverage. 22. On July 10, 1999, the Buick was involved in an automobile accident in Dickinson Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 23. At the time, all three Defendants were in the vehicle. 24. As a result of the accident, Defendants demanded underinsured motorists' coverage from Penn National in the amount of the sum of the limits applicable to each covered vehicle under the policy. 25. Penn National, declining to accede to Defendants' demand that the coverage he stacked, paid to Defendants the amount of only $35,000.00 DISCUSSION Statement of Law Stacking. "[M]ost automobile insurance policies identify three classes of intended insureds: (1) class one - includes the named insured and any designated insured, and spouses or relatives if members of the same household; (2) class two - any other person operating or occupying an insured vehicle; and (3) class three - any person entitled to recover damages because of bodily injury sustained by an insured under #1 or #2 (i.e., a spouse claiming loss of consortium)." Insurance Company of Evanston v. Bowers, 758 A.2d 213, 217 n.l (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). As a general rule, "[t]he right to stack coverages lies with all persons within the 'class one' category of the 'insured', and. . . a 'class two' claimant, who is insured only because he is an occupant in a vehicle, is not entitled to stack coverages. The rationale underlying [this general rule is] that a claimant whose 4 coverage was solely a result of membership in the second category had not paid premiums, nor was he a specifically intended beneficiary of the policy. Thus, [such a claimant] ha[s] no recognizable contractual relationship with the insurer, and there exist[ s] no basis upon which he could reasonably expect multiple coverage." Selected Risk Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 520 Pa. 130, 135-36, 552 A.2d 1382, 1384-85 (1989); see Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Contrisciane, 504 Pa. 328, 338- 39,473 A.2d 1005, 1010-11 (1984). The Superior Court "has never held that simply being listed as a driver on an insurance policy automatically transforms an individual into a class one insured." Caron v. Reliance Ins. Co., 703 A.2d 63, 68 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). Application of Law to Facts In the present case, the credible evidence, in the court's view, has supported the Plaintiff s factual position with respect to the intended effect of the contractual provisions at issue. Based upon the foregoing, the following conclusions of law and order of court will be made and entered: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this litigation. 2. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in the form of a declaration that Defendants may not stack the insurance at issue with respect to the accident occurring on July 10, 1999. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff s complaint in the above-captioned matter, and following a non-jury trial, the court finds in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, and declares that 5 Defendants may not stack the underinsured motorists' coverage at issue with respect to the accident occurring on July 10, 1999. BY THE COURT, s/ 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Peter 1. Speaker, Esq. P.O. Box 999 305 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory M. Feather, Esq. 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorney for Defendants 6 7 PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMP ANY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW GEORGE WILLIAM MANUEL, SR., MARGARET MANUEL And TAMMI JO MANUEL, Defendants NO. 01-562 CIVIL TERM IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff s complaint in the above-captioned matter, and following a non-jury trial, the court finds in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, and declares that Defendants may not stack the underinsured motorists' coverage at issue with respect to the accident occurring on July 10, 1999. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Peter 1. Speaker, Esq. P.O. Box 999 305 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff 9 Gregory M. Feather, Esq. 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorney for Defendants