Justices Look at 'Resident Relative' Qualifications in Fatal UIM Stacking Case
The parents of a woman killed in a car crash argued that, at the time of her death, their daughter driver’s license still listed their address as her home address, and she gave her employer her parents’ address as her home address as well.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument on whether the Superior Court properly held that a woman who started moving out of her parents’ house before her death in an auto accident no longer qualified as a “resident relative” under her parents’ insurance policy and was therefore not entitled to stacked UIM coverage.
The justices granted allocatur early this month in Grix v. Progressive Specialty Insurance, where previously a three-judge appeals panel unanimously ruled to affirm a Juniata County trial court’s grant of summary judgment to an insurer who denied a claim for stacked UIM benefits by the parents of a woman who was killed in a motor vehicle accident.
This premium content is locked for
Insurance Coverage Law Center subscribers only.
Start a free trial to 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
Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.