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

The trial court opinion and order in Oesterling v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 11429 of 2008, C.A. (C.P.Lawrence June 28, 2011) denied Allstate’s Motion to enforce an exclusion. This case involves a dispute over underinsured (UIM) motorist coverage. Oesterling was injured and settled the third party case. Then made a UIM claim with his personal carrier Allstate for the injuries suffered while riding his motor scooter . Allstate denied the claim based on the household exclusion. However, the exclusion was added to policy after policy was initially purchased.

Therefore, the trial court held that Allstate needs to show that the insured was aware of the newly added exclusion and understood the change to be valid. Allstate failed to do so and it was a jury issue. Therefore, Allstate may still be required to pay the UIM coverage if a jury finds that the insured was not aware of the exclusion and failed to understand the change.

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
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer
Twitter.com/TalkToALawyer

Comments are closed.

Of Interest