Photo: Shutterstock
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument on whether the Superior Court properly held that a woman who started moving out of her parents' house before her death in an auto accident no longer qualified as a "resident relative" under her parents' insurance policy and was therefore not entitled to stacked UIM coverage.
The justices granted allocatur early this month in Grix v. Progressive Specialty Insurance, where previously a three-judge appeals panel unanimously ruled to affirm a Juniata County trial court's grant of summary judgment to an insurer who denied a claim for stacked UIM benefits by the parents of a woman who was killed in a motor vehicle accident.
The Supreme Court agreed to tackle the following questions:
"Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law in finding that the decedent was not a resident of her parents' household at the time of her death even though she was listed as a 'household driver' on the household insurance policy, a premium was charged, and the facts overwhelmingly establish she was also a 'resident' of the household at the time of her death?"
And, "Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law in finding that the decedent was not a 'designated insured' entitled to stacking even though the decedent was listed on her parents' policy as a 'driver and household resident' and premiums were charged up through and until the time of her tragic death?"
According to court records, Daniel and Cathleen Grix sought stacked UIM benefits from their insurance, Progressive Specialty Insurance Co., after their daughter Naomi Grix died in a car accident. The insurer denied the claim, however, finding that Naomi Grix had moved out of her parents' home about six weeks before her death and thus was not considered a "resident relative" under the policy. Instead, the insurer concluded, Naomi Grix was considered a "class two insured" who was not entitled to stacked benefits.
According to the appeals court's Feb. 10 nonprecedential opinion, the insurer based this determination on, among other things, the fact that, at the time of her death, Naomi Grix had begun making rental payments on a property with two roommates; was keeping clothing, jewelry, a toothbrush, art supplies and a laptop computer at that address; and was in the process of moving more of her belongings out of her parents' house and into her new property.
The Grixes, meanwhile, argued that, at the time of her death, Naomi Grix's driver's license still listed their address as her home address; she gave her employer her parents' address as her home address; and she had clothes, a toothbrush, art supplies, a guitar, a bed and a room, and received mail at their address.
The plaintiff's lawyer, Scott Cooper of Schmidt Kramer, said, "An insurance company should not be able to charge a premium for coverage on someone's daughter who is listed on the policy and then choose to keep the premium but then say she is not covered."
David Friedman of Forry Ullman represents Progressive and declined to comment.
P.J. D'Annunzio
Reporter at the Legal Intelligencer covering public corruption, federal courts, and breaking news.