In the recent case of Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. McNear, 2025 PA Super 48 (2025), the Superior Court was asked to decide whether insurers are required to obtain a new uninsured/underinsured (“UM/UIM”) elections of lower limits waiver each time a new vehicle is added to an existing insurance policy pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1734. In Goodville, Appellants had car insurance policies that were initially purchased in 2012 and elected “less-than-full” underinsured motorist UIM coverage in the amount of $50,000 per person / $100,000 per accident. Throughout the life of the policy, the Appellants added and removed various vehicles without executing a subsequent election of lower UIM limits.
After a 2018 accident, Appellants filed a claim with Goodville for UIM benefits. Goodville paid $150,000 based on the stacked election of $50,000 in UIM benefits across three vehicles. The Appellants disputed the available amount of UIM benefits on the policy, asserting that the additions of new vehicles to their policy constituted new “purchases” of coverage which required Goodville to obtain new UIM lower limit elections under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1734. Because Goodville did not obtain new UIM lower limit elections, Appellants claimed they were bound to pay full UIM benefits which they claims were $250,000 stacked across three vehicles.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court compared this case to Barnard v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 216 A.3d 1045 (Pa. 2019), which held that as a matter of first impression, increase in limits of UIM coverage on each vehicle covered by policy was “purchase” under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1738, the statute governing the insured’s entitlement to “stacked” UM/UIM limits.
In rejecting Appellants’ attempts to analogize the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1738 as outlined in Barnard, the Court analyzed the statutory requirements for UM/UIM lower limit elections under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1734, which states, “A named insured may request in writing the issuance of coverages under section 1731 (relating to availability, scope and amount of coverage) in amounts equal to or less than the limits of liability for bodily injury.”
The Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that unlike The Court noted that 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1738, Pa.C.S.A. § 1734 requires only that the insurer “issue” UIM coverage in the amount selected by a name insured in writing signed by a named insured. Moreover, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1791 dictates that once notice of the available benefits is provided, no further notice shall be required. The Court rejected Appellants’ analogy, explaining that the lower limit election requirements within 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1734 do not the same “purchase” language that re-trigger compliance within 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1738. Therefore, because the Appellants never affirmatively requested a change to the UIM coverage and did not object to any defects in the 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1791notices they received, Appellants original “signature” remained effective at the time of the accident. Thus, Goodville was under no obligation to provide additional notices regarding the limited UIM benefits on the policy or obtain subsequent lower limit elections each time a new vehicle was added to the policy.
The Goodville 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.