GEICO Advantage Insurance Co v. Paula Wetzel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2026
• Docket: 25-2056
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-2056

GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE CO.; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO.

v.

PAULA WETZEL; EDWIN WETZEL, Appellants _____________________________ On Appeal from the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa. Judge Gerald A. McHugh, No. 2:24-cv-02554

Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges Submitted: Apr. 20, 2026; Filed: Apr. 20, 2026 _____________________________

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION*

BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Per-person limits in a car-insurance policy apply per person, not

per legal cause of action. Three years ago, in Pennsylvania, Alexander Wetzel’s car collided

with another car because of the other driver’s negligence, killing them both. The other

driver’s insurance paid Alexander’s parents, Paula and Edwin Wetzel, the applicable policy

limit.

The Wetzels also filed a claim under their own insurance policy with Geico Advantage

for underinsured-motorist coverage, which covers bodily injury (including death) up to

$100,000 per person. That policy was issued and delivered in Pennsylvania and has a Penn-

sylvania choice-of-law clause. In Pennsylvania, a fatal accident gives rise to both a wrongful-

death action (for the surviving relatives) and a survival action (for the victim’s estate). So

* This is not an opinion of the full Court and, under 3d Cir. IOP 5.7, is not binding precedent. the Wetzels claim that Geico should have to pay $100,000 in underinsured-motorist cover-

age for their wrongful-death claim plus another $100,000 for the survival claim. Geico says

the $100,000 limit applies per person, not per claim. The District Court agreed with Geico,

granting it summary judgment. Reviewing de novo, we will affirm. Tundo v. County of Pas-

saic, 923 F.3d 283, 286–87 (3d Cir. 2019).

The Wetzels’ insurance-policy language bars double-dipping: “The most we will pay

for all damages including those for care or loss of services due to bodily injury to one

person in any one accident is the limit shown in the Declarations for ‘each person’ appli-

cable to the vehicle that the insured was occupying at the time of the accident.” 2 App. 87

(emphasis removed). The underinsured-motorist limit shown on the Declarations Page is

$100,000 for “Each Person.” 2 App. 58. That language is clear: no more than $100,000 per

person bodily injured in the accident. Though the Wetzels try to manufacture ambiguity,

nothing about it is ambiguous.

To get around this cap, the Wetzels say there are two legal persons claiming damages,

each of whom should get $100,000: Alexander’s estate in the survival action, and sepa-

rately the Wetzels as wrongful-death beneficiaries. They have, of course, been hurt by los-

ing their son. But their wrongful-death claim is part of “all damages” deriving from Alex-

ander’s bodily injury. The policy language ties its damage limits not to the cause of action

or claimants, but to “each person” bodily injured in each accident. Only Alexander was

“bodily injured,” so only he qualifies. Plus, Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly rejected

efforts to expand insurance-coverage limits by multiple claimants seeking to recover for a

single victim’s bodily injuries. See, e.g., Smith v. Cassida, 169 A.2d 539, 540–41 (Pa.

2 1961); Vickodil v. Pa. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 514 A.2d 635, 637–38 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986); Koenig

v. Progressive Ins. Co., 599 A.2d 690, 691–93 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). Most jurisdictions

apply the per-person limit to wrongful-death claims. See 12 Couch on Insurance § 171:16

(3d ed. 2025).

In response, the Wetzels rely exclusively on a non-insurance case, but it is inapt. In that

case, a bus hit and killed a woman. Tulewicz v. SEPTA, 606 A.2d 427, 428 (Pa. 1992). Her

husband sued the bus company for both wrongful death and survival. Id. The bus company

invoked a state sovereign-immunity statute that capped damages “arising from the same

cause of action or transaction or occurrence or series of causes of actions or transactions or

occurrences” at $250,000 per plaintiff or $1,000,000 aggregate. Id. at 430 (quoting 42 Pa.

Cons. Stat. § 5111(a) (repealed)). The court applied that cap separately to each cause of

action. Id. at 431. Yet that statute, unlike this insurance policy, pegged its limits to causes

of action and plaintiffs, not injured persons. So that case does not apply, and we will AFFIRM.