Recently, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Tracy Bufflap, No. 1:23-CV-02023, 2024 WL 4899999 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2024) analyzed the nature of antique automobile insurance policies and their governance under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”).
In Bufflap, the claimant was operating a 2006 Nissan when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He recovered from the tortfeasor’s policy as well as underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits under the policy that insured the vehicle he occupied. He thereafter sought additional UIM benefits under a policy he had with Foremost insuring an antique 1969 Plymouth Roadster and provided for stacked UIM benefits of $300,000. The insurer denied coverage pursuant to a policy provision that limited the claimant’s status as an “insured” entitled to benefits under the antique auto policy only to instances where the claimant actually occupied the antique vehicle insured under the policy. The claimant in turn urged that the provisions of the antique policy violated the MVFRL by limiting the scope of his status as an “insured” and, separately, precluding him from obtaining “stacking” that he purchased in violation of Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019) wherein the Supreme Court held that policy provisions that preclude an insured’s recovery of inter-policy stacking that he purchased are void.
Bufflap argued that the holding in Gallagher should apply to his definition of the word “insured” in his insurance policy, however, the District Court noted that this case differed from Gallagher in two major respects. Gallagher was examining the household exclusion language, not the definition of “insured.” Also, in Gallagher, the Plaintiff was seeking to recover from the same insurance company, while here Bufflap is seeking to recover from two different policies from two different insurance companies. Therefore, Foremost was not on notice they would potentially need to insure the vehicle that Bufflap was driving during the accident. Moreover, while acknowledging that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck limitations to the definition of “insured” in typical auto policies in Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Colbert, 813 A.2d 747 (Pa. 2002), the Bufflap Court explained that said reasoning does not apply to antique vehicle insurance policies. Instead, the intent to lower premiums behind the MVFRL dictated that antique policies are not governed by traditional MVFRL principles and may restrict the definition of “insured” to instances where the actual antique vehicle is occupied by the claimant.
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court found that Bufflap was not being deprived of coverage he purchased, but rather he purchased only a limited form of coverage. The Court explained that Bufflap paid for a limited form of UIM coverage that only applied while he occupied the covered automobile, which he was not operating at the time of the accident, therefore, precluding him from recovering UIM benefits under that insurance policy.
The Bufflap decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Michala Petersen, Esquire and/or Glen Shikunov, Esquire.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
