Recently, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in McGuire v. Nationwide Affinity Insurance Co. of America, 2024 WL 4150098 (W.D.Pa. September 11, 2024) analyzed a dispute regarding if the denial of stacking of underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”) under a policy was warranted under previously executed “stacking waivers” that were executed prior to numerous changes to the policy that the claimant urged created a “new policy” that required new waivers.
In McGuire the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident with an underinsured driver and sought UIM benefits from his father’s automobile policy that waived stacking. The father’s policy renewed every six months with the same terms and coverage after the initial stacking waiver was executed. At the renewal date shortly prior to the accident, Nationwide sent notice of a policy change called “One Product Initiative” that Nationwide stated was the same coverage, but that the “renewal” policy may include changes to coverage and its limits, and deductibles as listed in the ‘clarifications” section of the policy. The policy also had a new policy number. The claimant argued that the aforesaid changes did not constitute a “renewal” but instead created a brand-new policy that was not accompanied by a new “stacking waiver” thereby entitling the claimant to stacked UIM benefits. The District Court ruled that the policy was a new policy and not a renewal based on the totality of circumstances and thus needed a valid stacking waiver pursuant to section 1738 of the MVFRL in order to deny stacked benefits. The opinion focused on various reasons why this policy was not a renewal policy. First, the policy included an entirely new policy number and new terms and conditions for UM/UIM coverage constituted a new policy because there was a reduction in coverage in the clarifications section of the policy that reduced coverage and added new exclusions that were not in the prior policy; for example, the new policy excluded UM/UIM coverage for unlicensed drivers while the prior policy allowed for such coverage. Moreover, the Judge reasoned that the reduced UM/UIM coverage in the subsequent policy was the “purchase” of a new policy under section 1738 of the MVFRL because the insured was possessing something he did not have before and thus a new waiver was needed. The Court thus ruled that changes to the scope of coverage via the “One Product Initiative” created a new policy that provided for reduced coverage than what the claimant previously bargained for and, in turn, required new stacking waivers to properly reject stacking.
The McGuire decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Alyssa Klier, Esq. and/or Glen Shikunov, Esq.
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.
