Summary
In Ayers, an equally divided Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision that a household vehicle exclusion was "not contrary to the MVFRL or any other discernable public policy."
Summary of this case from Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.Opinion
No. 26 WAP 2010.
Argued April 12, 2011.
Decided April 28, 2011.
Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court. Court entered on August 18, 2008 at No. 839 WDA 2007, reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered on April 16, 2007 at No. GD-05-29620, and remanding.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2011, the Court being evenly divided, the Order of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Chief Justice CASTILLE and Messrs. Justice Saylor and Eakin would affirm, and Mr. Justice Saylor files an Opinion in Support of Affirmance.
Mr. Justice Baer, Madame Justice Todd, and Mr. Justice McCaffery would reverse.
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE
I would disapprove the utilization by an insurer of separate policies pertaining to multiple vehicles within the same household solely to subvert intra-policy stacking without any risk-based justification. Nevertheless, I am persuaded by the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the rationale of the Superior Court, and the suggestion by a plurality of this Court that the writing of separate policies, and enforcement of the household exclusion, is justified relative to motorcycle insurance coverage. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roth, 252 Fed. Appx. 505, 2007 WL 3226188, at *2-3 (3d Cir. 2007); Alderson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 884 A.2d 288, 290 (Pa. Super. 2005); Erie Ins. Exch. v. Baker, 972 A.2d 507, 512 n. 9 (Pa. 2008) (plurality).