In the recent case, Pummer v. Engelbrecht, 2024 WL 5245037, (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 30, 2024), the Court was asked to evaluate whether an insurance carrier is required to establish prejudice in cases where a plaintiff seeking uninsured motorist benefits (“UM”) fails to report a hit-and-run car accident to law enforcement. In Pummer, the Appellant was in an Uber which was rearended. The Uber Driver and driver of the vehicle that caused the accident both pulled over to the side of the road and exchanged names and insurance information. Both drivers agreed that the Driver of the vehicle that caused the accident would pay the necessary costs to have the Uber Driver’s vehicle repaired, and further, that it was unnecessary to report the incident to the police based upon their observations that the vehicle sustained minor property damage and the Uber Driver’s passenger, [Appellant], stated she was okay. Appellant remained in the vehicle throughout the conversation. Shortly after the accident, Appellant discovered she sustained injuries. Thereafter, the Plaintiff made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, claiming that because she did not know the identity of the driver of the other vehicle the claim fit the description of a “hit and run” unidentified vehicle collision rendering it a proper “uninsured motorist” claim. The UM carrier denied the claim by urging that the claimant failed to report the claim to the police within 30 days of the accident as required under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1702.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer due to appellate courts previously holding that the failure to report the accident involving a hit and run vehicle to the police within 30 days thereof bars recovery of UM benefits. See Jackson v. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan, 575 A.2d 626, 628 (Pa. Super. 1990) (per curiam) (citations omitted); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Foster, 889 A.2d 78 (Pa. 2005). On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that this matter is instead controlled by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 997 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2010) (Vanderhoff I), and Vanderhoff, v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 78 A.3d 1060 (Pa. 2013) (Vanderhoff II) and that even absent reporting of the accident, certain factual circumstances exist that allow for recovery of UM benefits despite a lack of reporting.
The Superior Court found that the absence of a police report is not fatal to Appellant’s uninsured motorist claim because (1) Appellant did not have a duty to obtain the striking vehicle’s identity because the drivers of the involved vehicles are required to exchange certain information, and that duty extends to occupants only in cases where driver is physically unable to do so. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3744(a), (c); see also 75 Pa.C.S. § 3746(a)(1)-(2); (2) the record reflects that while Appellant did not ask for the striking vehicle’s driver’s information immediately after the accident, the information also was never offered to her; and (3) the identity of the other driver was known to the driver of the Uber vehicle as well as the insurer rendering the identity of the motorist known for purposes of a UM claim. Therefore, the absence of a police report is not fatal to Appellant’s uninsured motorist claim.
The Prummer decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Michaela 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.