Kuhns v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. LM Gen. Ins. Co. v. LeBrun

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-2144-KSM (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2020)

    360 (E.D. Pa. 2013), aff'd, 568 F. App'x 183 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding that the plaintiffs' three motorcycles were added via a continuous after-acquired vehicle provision and the insurer did not need to obtain a new waiver, where, each time the plaintiff purchased a new motorcycle, the insurer issued a revised declarations page, listing the motorcycles covered under the policy); Powell v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 13-5721, 2014 WL 3573139, at *8-9 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2014) (concluding that the plaintiff's vehicle was added to the policy via a continuous after-acquired clause and rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the amended declarations page, which reflected the addition of the vehicle, was an endorsement); Mitchell v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 3:14-0384, 2015 WL 5762927, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2015) (holding that the vehicle was added to the policy via a continuous after-acquired vehicle clause and no new waiver form was required); Kuhns v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 760 F. App'x 129, 132-33 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming the magistrate court's conclusion that "neither the adding of the fourth vehicle to the declarations sheet, nor the issuance of that sheet, triggered [the insurer's] contractual duty to extend coverage to the [insured's] newly-acquired vehicle. Instead, its duty was triggered by the policy's after-acquired vehicle clause," and holding that the insurer was not required to secure a new waiver form).

  2. LM Gen. Ins. Co. v. LeBrun

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-2144-KSM (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2021)

    Bumbarger v. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co., 93 A.3d 872, 873-74, 878-79 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (en banc); Pergolese v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 162 A.3d 481, 490 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017); Newhook v. Erie Ins. Exch., No. 1917 EDA 2017, 2018 WL 1939814, at *4 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 25, 2018); Kline v. Travelers Pers. Sec. Ins. Co., 223 A.3d 677, 688 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). See Seiple v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 954 F. Supp. 2d 352, 353, 360 (E.D. Pa. 2013), aff'd, 568 F. App'x 183 (3d Cir. 2014); Powell v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 13-5721, 2014 WL 3573139, at *8-9 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2014); Mitchell v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 3:14-0384, 2015 WL 5762927, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2015); Kuhns v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 760 F. App'x 129, 132-33 (3d Cir. 2019). We also noted that although the Bumbarger court stated that the first step of the analysis required a "factual determination," we are not bound by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and that the Seiple court decided the issue on a motion to dismiss, as a matter of law.

  3. Romano v. Liberty Mut. Holding Ins.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-cv-02318 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2021)

    The parties have cited several cases in reliance upon their respective positions. The defendant relies upon: Seiple, 568 Fed. App'x 183 (3d Cir. 2014) (Sackett III does not create a per se rule that vehicles added by endorsement require new stacking waivers without regard to the language in the after-acquired clause); Powell v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 13-5721, 2014 WL 3573139, at *8-*9 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2014) (concluding that the plaintiff's vehicle was added to the policy via a continuous after-acquired clause and rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the amended declarations page, which reflected the addition of the vehicle, was an endorsement); Mitchell v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 3:14-0384, 2015 WL 5762927, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2015) (holding that the vehicle was added to the policy via a continuous after-acquired vehicle clause and no new waiver form was required); and Kuhns v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 760 Fed. App'x 129, 132-33 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming the district court's conclusion that "neither the adding of the fourth vehicle to the declarations sheet, nor the issuance of that sheet, triggered [the insurer's] contractual duty to extend coverage to the [insured's] newly-acquired vehicle. Instead, its duty was triggered by the policy's after-acquired vehicle clause," and holding that the insurer was not required to secure a new waiver form).

  4. LM Gen. Ins. Co. v. LeBrun

    470 F. Supp. 3d 440 (E.D. Pa. 2020)   Cited 20 times

    language in the after-acquired clause." Seeid. at 353, 360 (holding that the plaintiffs’ three motorcycles were added via a continuous after-acquired vehicle provision and the insurer did not need to obtain a new waiver, where, each time the plaintiff purchased a new motorcycle, the insurer issued a revised declarations page, listing the motorcycles covered under the policy); Powell v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , Civil Action No. 13-5721, 2014 WL 3573139, at *8–9 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2014) (concluding that the plaintiff's vehicle was added to the policy via a continuous after-acquired clause and rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the amended declarations page, which reflected the addition of the vehicle, was an endorsement); Mitchell v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. , Civil Action No. 3:14-0384, 2015 WL 5762927, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2015) (holding that the vehicle was added to the policy via a continuous after-acquired vehicle clause and no new waiver form was required); Kuhns v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co. , 760 F. App'x 129, 132–33 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming the magistrate court's conclusion that "neither the adding of the fourth vehicle to the declarations sheet, nor the issuance of that sheet, triggered [the insurer's] contractual duty to extend coverage to the [insured's] newly-acquired vehicle. Instead, its duty was triggered by the policy's after-acquired vehicle clause," and holding that the insurer was not required to secure a new waiver form).