Gallagher, B. v. Geico Indemnity

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Gallagher, B. v. Geico Indemnity

170 A.3d 974

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 8, 2017

DocketGallagher, B. v. Geico Indemnity - No. 87 WAL 2017 (Granted)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 170 A.3d 974 (Gallagher, B. v. Geico Indemnity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gallagher, B. v. Geico Indemnity, 170 A.3d 974 (Pa. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by the Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” violates Section 1738 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) where GEICO issued all household policies and unilaterally decided to issue two separate policies, when the insured desired stacking, elected stacking, paid ad *975 ditional premiums for stacking and never knowingly waived stacking of underinsured motorist benefits?

(2) Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” impermissibly narrows or conflicts with the statutory mandates of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and the evidence of record is that GEICO was fully aware of the risks of insuring a motorcycle in the same household as other family vehicles but unilaterally decided to write a separate motorcycle policy?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by the Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” violates Section 1738 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) where GEICO issued all household policies and unilaterally decided to issue two separate policies, when the insured desired stacking, elected stacking, paid ad *975 ditional premiums for stacking and never knowingly waived stacking of underinsured motorist benefits?

(2) Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” impermissibly narrows or conflicts with the statutory mandates of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and the evidence of record is that GEICO was fully aware of the risks of insuring a motorcycle in the same household as other family vehicles but unilaterally decided to write a separate motorcycle policy?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.3d 974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallagher-b-v-geico-indemnity-pa-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack