In LaCaffinie, the plaintiff/insured appealed the entry of summary judgment against him, and in favor of his automobile insurer, claiming that the insurer charged him for a more expensive stacked UM/UIM, single-vehicle insurance policy, but provided a policy that prohibited stacking.
Summary of this case from Vensko v. Encompass HomeNO. 1149 WDA 2011
2012-07-11
A. LaCaffinie v. The Standard Fire Insurance Co.
Appeal From: No. 2156 of 2009, G.D. (Fayette)
Disposition: Affirmed.
In LaCaffinie, the plaintiff/insured appealed the entry of summary judgment against him, and in favor of his automobile insurer, claiming that the insurer charged him for a more expensive stacked UM/UIM, single-vehicle insurance policy, but provided a policy that prohibited stacking.
Summary of this case from Vensko v. Encompass HomeFull title:A. LaCaffinie v. The Standard Fire Insurance Co.
Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Date published: Jul 11, 2012
II. Did the [trial] court err in relying on the non-precedential [Memorandum] of the Superior Court in…
Jones v. GEICO Choice Ins. Co.Id. ("[W]e hold that [Ms. Generette's] recovery under [her] policy is not barred by her waiver of…