Photo: Shutterstock
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a ruling transferring an insurance dispute over an auto accident from Philadelphia to Bucks County to avoid potentially inconsistent rulings because of a related matter in the latter court.
A three-judge panel consisting of Judges John Bender, Anne Lazarus and Correale Stevens upheld a Bucks County judge's ruling sustaining defendant Erie Insurance Exchange's preliminary objections of plaintiff Jason Matthews' suit and its request to change venue.
Matthews was involved in an accident while driving a truck owned by Ion Construction. He was listed as an insured under the Erie policy.
According to Bender's opinion, the trial court held reformation of the insurance contract to provide for UIM coverage must also include the forum selection provisions that would have accompanied such coverage in the absence of an invalid waiver.
The question before the Superior Court was whether the trial court "could enforce a forum selection clause to transfer venue that uncontrovertibly was not contained in the original insurance contract without any legal authority to support a reformation of the contract to include such a clause."
Erie argued that the plaintiff's argument essentially awards greater coverage to parties who don't purchase UIM coverage. The company claimed the result would be "unfettered coverage" to an "absurd" level.
"Pursuant to the applicable standard of review and based on the arguments before us, appellant has not convinced us that the trial court abused its discretion in transferring the case to Bucks County," Bender said. "The trial court provided a rational explanation for its determination, and Erie proffers compelling reasons for why the trial court's decision should stand. Furthermore, appellant does not point us to, and discuss, any authority to demonstrate that the trial court committed legal error in reaching its decision."
Bender said that Matthews' argument that Erie failed to comply with Section 1731 also failed.
"Section 1731(c.1) sets forth that a non-compliant UIM rejection form is void and, in the event of an invalid waiver, UIM coverage shall be equal to the bodily injury liability limits under the policy; thus, nothing on the face of the statute precludes the trial court from reforming the policy in other ways," Bender said. "Here, appellant claims that Ion Construction Inc., did not validly waive UIM coverage. As such, the trial court reformed the policy to provide Ion Construction Inc., with the UIM benefits it would have otherwise received—which would have included the at-issue forum selection clause."
Matthews is represented Dana Weitz of Schatz & Steinberg, who did not respond to a request for comment. Scott Tredwell of McCormick & Priore represents Erie and declined to comment.
P.J. D'Annunzio
Reporter at the Legal Intelligencer covering public corruption, federal courts, and breaking news.