 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rump v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.4/2/1998
OPINION OF THE COURT
The sole issue on appeal is whether a person who has selected the "limited tort" option for his automobile insurance policy pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL") is precluded from recovering non-economic damages (i.e., pain and suffering) under the uninsured motorist provisions of his insurance policy where the accident was caused by an uninsured motorist whose vehicle was registered in a state other than Pennsylvania. Because we find that the MVFRL precludes such a recovery, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.
The facts for purposes of this appeal are not in dispute. Appellant was a designated insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by appellee, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company ("Aetna"). When purchasing this insurance policy, appellant selected the "limited tort" insurance option pursuant to the MVFRL, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1705. The purchase of the "limited tort" option allowed appellant to reduce his insurance premium. In return for this reduced premium, appellant was generally precluded from recovering for a non-economic loss unless he sustained a "serious injury" from the accident. 75 Pa. C.S. § 1705(d). On April 18, 1991, appellant was involved in an automobile accident. The parties stipulated that the accident was caused by an uninsured driver who was operating a motor vehicle registered in the State of Minnesota. As a result of the accident, appellant filed a claim under the uninsured motorist provisions of his automobile insurance policy with Aetna for non-economic damages. Aetna denied appellant's claim on the grounds that appellant, as a limited tort claimant, was not eligible to recover non-economic damages because he had not suffered a "serious injury" as defined by the MVFRL.
Appellant responded to Aetna's denial of his claim for uninsured benefits by filing a complaint requesting a declaratory judgment that he was not precluded from maintaining a claim under the uninsured motorist provisions of his automobile insurance policy with Aetna for noneconomic damages. Appellant's complaint admitted that he did not suffer a "serious injury" from the accident. However, appellant claimed he was entitled to recover non-economic damages because he fell within the following two exceptions set forth in the MVFRL:
(d) Limited tort alternative - Each person who elects the limited tort alternative remains eligible to seek compensation for economic loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident as the consequence of the fault of another person pursuant to applicable tort law. Unless the injury sustained is a serious injury, each person who is bound by the limited tort election shall be precluded from maintaining an action for any non-economic loss, except that:
(1) An individual otherwise bound by the limited tort election who sustains damages in a motor vehicle accident as the consequence of the fault of another person may recover damages as if the individual damaged had elected the full tort alternative whenever the person at fault . . .
(ii) is operating a motor vehicle registered in another state . . . or
(iv) has not maintained financial responsibility as required by this chapter, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall affect the limitation of section 1731(d)(2) (relating to availability, scope and amount of coverage).
75 Pa. C.S. § 1705(d)(1)(ii) and (iv) (emphasis added). Thus, appellant claimed he was entitled to recover non-economic damages pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of his policy with Aetna because the person at fault was uninsured and operating a vehicle registered in another state.
Aetna responde
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|