When it comes to the validity of the “coordination of benefits” provision with the requirements of the MVFRL, the Court rejected the plaintiff's claims that it creates “gap coverage” in violation of Generette c. The policy in question did not have a second motor vehicle or UIM coverage, and the plaintiff's “cumulative rejection exemption” was a conscious decision to reduce their premiums in exchange for not accumulating between policies. The Court distinguished Generette because that case involved a provision that reduced the amount of second-priority UIM coverage by the amount of first-priority UIM coverage received. In this case, the provision limits full recovery in multi-second priority policies and, therefore, does not create a “gap” of coverage between the different priority levels. The unengined wagon was not a “motor vehicle”, was not insured for UIM and was expressly excluded from such coverage under the terms of the policy.
Therefore, the Court explained that the plaintiff could not have thought that their UIM accumulation exemption rejected their right to stack I.When it comes to understanding the priority of UIM coverage in Pennsylvania, it is important to note that there is no second motor vehicle or UIM coverage in the policy. The plaintiff's “cumulative rejection exemption” knowingly waived the accumulation between policies in exchange for reducing their premiums. In this case, however, the provision limits full recovery in multi-second priority policies and does not create a “gap” of coverage between different priority levels. It is also important to note that unengined wagons are not considered “motor vehicles” and are not insured for UIM. This means that they are expressly excluded from such coverage under the terms of the policy.
As such, plaintiffs cannot assume that their UIM accumulation exemption will reject their right to stack I.In conclusion, understanding the priority of UIM coverage in Pennsylvania is essential for those who are looking to purchase insurance policies. It is important to note that there is no second motor vehicle or UIM coverage in policies and that unengined wagons are not insured for UIM. Additionally, plaintiffs should be aware that their “cumulative rejection exemption” knowingly waives accumulation between policies in exchange for reducing premiums. Finally, it is important to understand that Generette c.
involved a provision that reduced second-priority UIM coverage by first-priority UIM, while this case limits full recovery in multi-second priority policies and does not create a “gap” of coverage between different priority levels.
