How 'Gallagher,' Affects the Household Exclusion Status and UM/UIM Stacking in Pa.
At its most basic level, the Gallagher decision held that the household exclusion contained in Geico’s UIM policy was unenforceable because it impermissibly denied stacked UIM coverage to Geico's insured.
Just before COVID-19 captured and took hostage society’s collective attention, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Gallagher v. Geico Indemnity, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019) turned a year old. At its most basic level, the Gallagher decision held that the household exclusion contained in Geico’s UIM policy was unenforceable because it impermissibly denied stacked UIM coverage to Geico’s insured.
The insured in Gallagher was injured in an accident while riding his motorcycle. The motorcycle was insured on a policy issued by Geico that included UIM coverage. The insured also had a separate auto policy with stacked UIM coverage, which was also issued by Geico. When the insured made a claim for UIM benefits, Geico paid the UIM limits on the motorcycle policy, but denied coverage on the auto policy, citing the household exclusion. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, in those circumstances, the household exclusion operated as a “de facto waiver of stacked coverage,” which was not permitted by the MVFRL. Therefore, Geico’s household exclusion was unenforceable.
This premium content is locked for
Insurance Coverage Law Center subscribers only.
Enjoy unlimited access to the single source of objective legal analysis, practical insights, and news for the insurance industry.
- Access the most current expert analysis and daily developments across jurisdictions
- Solve complex research issues with expert tools and intelligence
- Tap into insurance coverage expert guidance
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected].
Copyright © 2024 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.