The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Recently, a Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania rendered an opinion in Douglas v. Discover, No. 3:08cv1607 (Munley J., M.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2011) dealing with a corporate fleet policy and a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. In this case, Douglas was provided a company car from Abbott labs and it was garaged in Pennsylvania. Discovery Prop. & Casualty was the insurance company for the vehicle and all Abbott cars on a corporate fleet policy. Douglas was injured in a car accident and ultimately sought underinsured motorist coverage. Discover denied UIM coverage based upon a rejection of UIM coverage form.

For a copy of the opinion feel free to contact Scott B. Cooper at SchmdtKramer PC below.

Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 – Telephone
(717) 232-6467 – Facsimile

The form did not comply with the statutory language. Discover still denied benefits and an action was filed. Judge Munley first finds that the form was not valid and thus is void under the law. Then, he holds that the rejection form requirement of Section 1731 applies to a corporate fleet policy and is not the same thing as the rejection of stacking form under Section 1738, which does not apply to a corporate fleet policy.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest