A jury may decide whether a change to a Pennsylvania man’s automobile insurance policy, namely the addition of a “household exclusion” limitation, was a “material change,” or one that is more typical for such policies, a question that could ultimately determine whether the plaintiff may claim underinsured motorist benefits for an accident he was in several years ago.
The ruling from Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas Judge Thomas M. Piccione is one of several pretrial decisions in Oesterling v. Allstate Insurance. Earlier this year, President Judge Dominick Motto said Allstate Insurance Co. did not act in bad faith by denying UIM coverage to Robert Oesterling, whose policy was changed to incorporate the household exclusion in 2005, even though Oesterling’s original policy from 1998 did not have such a provision. Oesterling was injured in an accident in 2006 while riding a motor scooter that was not covered under his Allstate policy. He received notice of the addition of the household exclusion to his policy via an Allstate mailer, but has contested the adequacy of Allstate’s notice.
