The state Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in a case over whether an insurer was prejudiced by an insured’s failure to timely indicate that a "phantom" vehicle had been involved in an accident before making a claim for uninsured motorist benefits.
The justices have already decided in the same case that insurers are required to show prejudice if they seek to bar UIM coverage after a claimant is late in notifying them about an alleged phantom vehicle. So, the resounding question as Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance made its second appearance before the high court was this: How?
