Superior Court Holds that MVFRL Does Not Require Insurers to Provide a Later-added Named Insured Notice of Opportunity to Elect or Waive Stacked Coverage.

Mr. Golik was issued an auto insurance policy by the defendant in 1992. After marriage, Mrs. Golik was added to the policy as a named insured. Mr. Golik had signed a stacking of coverage waiver at least twice before Mrs. Golik was added to the policy. After their marriage and after Mrs. Golik had been added to the policy, Mr. Golik had signed stacking waivers—these waivers were only addressed to Mr. Golik and were signed only by him. 

Mrs. Golik was injured in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured motorist and subsequently filed a claim for stacked uninsured motorist (UM) benefits with the defendant. The defendant tendered the unstacked amount of uninsured benefits, which Mrs. Golik did not accept.

The trial court held a bench trial and entered a verdict in favor of Mrs. Golik, awarding her the stacked UM coverage. The defendant appealed.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court looked to a number of cases interpreting the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law specifically with the statute’s use of “named insured” and “first named insured.” The court distilled this case law as holding that a named insured, even if subsequently added to a policy, is presumed to have known about available options and is bound by the first named insured’s elections, unless the insured takes an affirmative step to change the coverage.

Ultimately, the court determined that Mrs. Golik had constructive knowledge of the stacking waiver and was, thus, bound by the signature of the first named insured, her husband. Notably, the court mentioned that the Goliks “enjoyed the benefit of reduced premiums for more than 20 years” as a result of Mr. Golik having signed the stacking waiver. The Superior Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}