The case addresses a previously unresolved question of "whether a limit of protection clause capping second priority UIM coverage to the highest limit of liability of any single second priority UIM coverage policy violates the MVFRL's excess coverage requirement," according to the opinion. (Credit: GITTI.NUNCHO/Shutterstock.com)
In a matter of first impression, a three-judge Superior Court panel has ruled that a particular limit on the amount of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage an insured may recover from multiple auto policies does not violate Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
- Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
- Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
Already have an account? Sign In
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Aleeza Furman
Aleeza Furman is a Philadelphia-based litigation reporter with The Legal Intelligencer. Contact her at [email protected].
