Opinion
J-A27029-15 No. 1800 WDA 2014
12-30-2015
ALISHA L. FORD, Appellant v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 17, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Civil Division at No(s): 3733 OF 2013 BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON & STABILE, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
Appellant, Alisha L. Ford, appeals from the order entered on October 17, 2014. The subject order granted the motion for summary judgment that was filed by Appellee, American States Insurance Company (hereinafter "ASIC"), and denied Appellant's cross-motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural posture of this case. As the trial court explained:
The instant case arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 19, 2013[,] between [Appellant] and another vehicle driven by Carl Showalter. [Appellant], who was operating the insured vehicle, attempted to turn left with the right of way, when Mr. Showalter drove his vehicle through a solid red light and collided with [Appellant's] vehicle. As a result of the collision, [Appellant] suffered numerous injuries, including a fracture to her left ankle and a mild traumatic brain injury.
After the accident, [Appellant] gave notice to [ASIC] that she was pursuing an underinsured motorist [(hereinafter "UIM")] claim under [an automobile insurance policy with ASIC (hereinafter "the Policy"). Appellant's mother, Audrey Ford, purchased the Policy that insured the vehicle; Appellant was a listed driver on the Policy and was a permissive user of the vehicle at the time of the accident]. . . .
[O]n May 23, 2013, Mr. Showalter's insurance carrier tendered and paid to [Appellant] his liability policy limit[] of $25,000.00. On that same date, [ASIC] forwarded to [Appellant] the UIM rejection form[] contained in the Policy, wherein[, ASIC contended, Appellant's mother had] rejected [] UIM coverage [].
[The] UIM rejection form [at issue in this case] reads as follows:
Rejection of Underinsured Motorists Protection
By signing this waiver I am rejecting underinsured motorists coverage under this policy, for myself and all relatives residing in my household. Underinsured motorists coverage protects me and relatives living in my household for losses and damages suffered if injury is caused by the negligence of a driver who does not have enough insurance to pay for all losses and damages. I knowingly and voluntarily reject this coverage.
[Stipulations of Fact between Appellant and ASIC, 8/19/14, at "Exhibit 2"]. Below this paragraph is a signature line for the Policy's first named insured, which was signed and dated by [Appellant's] mother, Audrey Ford, on August 10, 2011.
Subchapter C of [Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL")], 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731, governs the availability and rejection of UIM coverage. Section 1731(c) . . . sets forth the following form to be used when an insured is rejecting such coverage:
REJECTION OF UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROTECTION
By signing this waiver I am rejecting underinsured motorist coverage under this policy, for myself and all relatives residing in my household. Underinsured coverage protects me and relatives living in my household for losses and damages suffered if injury is caused by the negligence of a driver who does not have enough insurance to pay for all losses and damages. I knowingly and voluntarily reject this coverage.
__________
Signature of First Named Insured
__________
Date
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731(c). . . .
Section 1731(c.1) then provides[]:
Insurers shall print the rejection forms required by subsections (b)[fn.1] and (c) on separate sheets in prominent type and location. The forms must be signed by the first named insured and dated to be valid. The signatures on the forms may be witnessed by an insurance agent or broker. Any rejection form that does not specifically comply with this section is void.
[75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731(c.1)].
Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/14, at 1-3.[fn.1] [75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731(b) concerns uninsured motorist coverage].
On June 3, 2013, Appellant forwarded a letter to ASIC, wherein she again demanded UIM coverage. Within the letter, Appellant declared:
The rejection form provided in this matter is not in strict compliance with the language required by Pennsylvania statute. I would refer you specifically to the second
sentence of the rejection form, which reads: "Underinsured Motorists Coverage protects me and relatives living in my household for losses and damages suffered if injury is caused by the negligence of a driver who does not have enough insurance to pay for all losses and damages." . . . The addition of the word "Motorists" deviates from the statutorily mandated language, as the statute refers only to "Underinsured coverage," rather than to "Underinsured Motorists Coverage."Appellant's Letter to ASIC, dated 6/3/13, at 2-3 (emphasis in original).
On July 1, 2013, ASIC sent Appellant a letter, declaring that it was "uphold[ing] [its] denial of coverage based on Mrs. Ford's rejection of [UIM] . . . benefits." ASIC Letter to Appellant, 7/1/13, at 2. Appellant then filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, wherein Appellant claimed that the UIM rejection form that was signed by Appellant's mother was void, as it did not "specifically comply" with 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731(c). Appellant's Complaint, 7/17/13, at ¶ 19.
On August 19, 2014, ASIC filed a motion for summary judgment and, on August 20, 2014, Appellant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Within ASIC's motion, ASIC claimed that it was entitled to summary judgment because Appellant's mother expressly rejected UIM coverage and:
[the ASIC] rejection form contains the exact language as the statutory form except for the addition of the letter 's' to the word 'Motorist' in the heading. This is inconsequential surplusage and/or an immaterial variance which should not result in an insured's getting a windfall of UIM coverage when the insured neither intended to have nor paid for such coverage.ASIC's Motion for Summary Judgment, 8/19/14, at 3.
Conversely, Appellant claimed that she was entitled to summary judgment because the UIM rejection form did not "specifically comply" with the language of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731(c) and, thus, the form was void. Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment, 8/20/14, at 1-2.
Attached to both summary judgment motions were stipulations of fact, wherein the parties agreed:
Stipulations of Fact between Appellant and ASIC, 8/19/14, at 2-3.
. . .
6. At all times material hereto, [Appellant] was an insured under her mother's Policy because [Appellant] was a resident of her mother's household.
7. On July 1, 2013, [ASIC] denied that there was [UIM] coverage under the Policy for [Appellant] as to the subject accident. This rejection was based on the "Underinsured Motorists Coverage Selection/Rejection" which was signed by Audrey Ford on August 10, 2011. . . .
. . .
9. 75 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 1731(c) and (c.1) of the MVFRL govern the rejection of UIM coverage. . . .
10. There are two differences between the statutory language of 75 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 1731(c) and the language of the [ASIC] form. These two differences are: 1) the [ASIC] form refers to "Motorists" in the heading, while the statutory form refers to "Motorist"; and 2) the [ASIC] form adds the word "motorists" in the second sentence to read "Underinsured motorists coverage," while the statutory form reads "Underinsured coverage."
11. Premiums were not paid by [Appellant] or her mother for [UIM] coverage.
By order entered October 17, 2014, the trial court granted ASIC's motion for summary judgment, denied Appellant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Appellant's complaint. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and now raises the following claim to this Court:
The trial court ordered Appellant to file and serve a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Appellant complied with the trial court's order and, within her Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant listed the claim she currently raises in her brief.
Whether the [trial] court erred or abused its discretion when holding that [ASIC's] [UIM] rejection form "specifically complies" with Section 1731 of the [MVFRL] despite [ASIC's] rejection form incorporating additional language that deviates from the mandated rejection form contained in Section 1731?Appellant's Brief at 4 (subheadings omitted and some internal capitalization omitted).
We reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well-written and thorough opinion from the able trial court judge, the Honorable David A. Regoli. We conclude that the claim raised in Appellant's brief fails and that Judge Regoli's opinion, filed on October 17, 2014, meticulously and accurately explains why Appellant's claim fails. Therefore, we adopt the trial court's opinion as our own. In any future filings with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of the trial court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/30/2015
Image materials not available for display.