The Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a non-precedential opinion on February 13, 2018, in the case of Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina v. Dawn Koons-Gill, (Docket No. 163 MDA 210), which affirmed a 2016 decision by Trial Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Common Pleas Court. (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 14, 2016, Nealon, J.). In that case, Judge Nealon was presented with an issue of whether an on-duty emergency medical technician, injured in an accident while occupying her employer’s ambulance, was entitled to stacked underinsured motorist coverage on the insurance policy for her employer’s six (6) vehicles.
The injured EMT first settled with the tortfeasor motorist who struck the ambulance. Believing that the tortfeasor was underinsured, she then sought UIM benefits against the host vehicle [ambulance] insurer. The insurance policy for the employer’s vehicles provided UIM coverage of $35,000 for each vehicle with stacking. However, the policy identified the ambulance company as the named insured and listed the six company vehicles. The Claimant contended that she was entitled to stack UIM coverage for the six vehicles for an aggregate UIM coverage limit of $210,000. The insurance company disputed that contention and commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of the applicable UIM coverage.
Judge Nealon noted that the single issue to be decided was whether the claimant may stack the UIM coverage for the six ambulances. Resolution of the issue is controlled by the language of the insurance policy and case law. The trial judge held that based upon the clear language of the applicable insurance policy and Pennsylvania case law, stacking would be permitted only for class one insureds, who are defined as the named insured or a family member. The injured claimant did not fall into either of those categories and she was considered to be a class two insured, and therefore unable to stack under the commercial policy. Therefore, the maximum amount of UIM benefits available to the injured claimant was $35,000. The Claimant then appealed this decision and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the lower court in a Memorandum Opinion.
