6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sackett v. Nationwide Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2017The agent notified Peerless and coverage of the fourth vehicle became effective as of the date of purchase; unlike the third vehicle, this fourth 3 However, it is important to note that in Sackett II, “where coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle clause is expressly made finite by the terms of the policy, Sackett I controls and requires the execution of a new UM/UIM stacking waiver upon the expiration of the automatic coverage in order for the unstacked coverage option to continue in effect subsequent to such expiration.” Sackett II, 940 A.2d at 334 (citation and footnote omitted). 2017In Sackett v. Nationwide, 940 A.2d 329 (Pa. 2007) (“Sackett II”), our Supreme Court held that the addition of a vehicle to an existing policy under an after-acquired vehicle clause that extends coverage on a continuous basis does not constitute the “purchase” of “new” insurance that requires the execution of a new waiver form under Section 1738(c) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”).1 Sackett II notwithstanding, the Majority concludes that Appellees are entitled to stack across their two policies, since the new vehicle was added by way of amended declaration pages that | 4 | 5 |
Bumbarger v. Peerless Indemnity Insurancegreen2 sentences2017Instead, relying upon this Court’s decision in Bumbarger v. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, 93 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), the trial court determined that, since the 1990 Ford F-150 was added by way of amended declarations pages, the new vehicle was covered under the “general terms of the policy” and the after- acquired vehicle clause never was triggered. 2017The after-acquired vehicle clause extends temporary, stop-gap coverage, thereby protecting the insured until the policy can be amended.” Majority Opinion at 14 (citing Bumbarger, 93 A.3d at 877-878 ). | 2 | 2 |
Sackett v. Nationwide Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2017The after- acquired vehicle clause in that case provided that coverage would apply to the insureds’ motor vehicles “only if you do not have other collectible insurance.” Sackett III, 4 A.3d at 640, n.2 . 2016The Satterfield situation is not relevant to the instant analysis. - 17 - J-A32006-15 The Sackett III decision was decided upon the fact that the newly purchased vehicle was actually added to the existing policy by means of an “corrected declarations/endorsement page”, see Sackett III, 4 A.3d at 638 , and not via the after acquired vehicle clause. | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Hartford Insurance Co.green1 sentence2017See Sackett II, 940 A.2d at 333 ; see also Smith, supra. Ultimately, consistent with Sackett II, the mechanics of both provisions accomplish the same objective to extend coverage to a new vehicle under an existing policy on a continuous basis. | 1 | 1 |
Satterfield v. Erie Insurance Property & Casualtygreen2 sentences2007On the other hand, in Satterfield v. Erie Insurance Property and Casualty, 217 W.Va. 474 , 618 S.E.2d 483 (2005), the after-acquired-vehicle clause in the policy under review extended continuing auto matic coverage, subject only to a condition subsequent of notice to the insurer concerning the purchase (and, presumably, payment of an additional premium). 2007On the other hand, in Satterfield v. Erie Insurance Property and Casualty, 217 W.Va. 474 , 618 S.E.2d 483 (2005), the after-acquired-vehicle clause in the policy under review extended continuing auto matic coverage, subject only to a condition subsequent of notice to the insurer concerning the purchase (and, presumably, payment of an additional premium). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sackett v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2007We hold that the extension of coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle provision to a vehicle added to a preexisting multi-vehicle policy is not a new purchase of coverage for purposes of Section 1738(c), and thus, does not trigger an obligation on the part of the insurer to obtain new or supplemental UM/UIM stacking waivers. 5 However, where coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle clause is expressly made finite by the terms of the policy, see, e.g., Bird, 165 P.3d at 346-47 , Sackett I controls and requires the execution of a new UM/UIM stacking waiver upon the expiration of the automatic c 2007We hold that the extension of coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle provision to a vehicle added to a preexisting multi-vehicle policy is not a new purchase of coverage for purposes of Section 1738(c), and thus, does not trigger an obligation on the part of the insurer to obtain new or supplemental UM/UIM stacking waivers. [5] However, where coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle clause is expressly made finite by the terms of the policy, see, e.g., Bird, 165 P.3d at 346-47 , Sackett I controls and requires the execution of a new UM/UIM stacking waiver upon the expiration of the automatic | 2 | 2007–2017 |
Bird v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2016However, where coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle clause is expressly made finite by the terms of the policy, see, e.g., Bird [v. State Farm, 142 N.M. 346 ], 165 P.3d [343] at 346-47 [ (Ct.App.2007) ], Sackett I, controls and requires the execution of a new UM/UIM stacking waiver upon the expiration of the automatic coverage in order for the unstacked coverage option to continue in effect subsequent to such expiration. 2016Further, For example, in Bird v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 142 N.M. 346 , 165 P.3d 343 (2007), the court reviewed a policy containing an after-acquired vehicle clause that extended coverage to new vehicles only until the thirty-first day after acquisition, thus requiring insureds to apply for a new policy to acquire coverage thereafter. | 2 | 2007–2016 |
Harstead v. Diamond State Insurance
green
2 sentences2017The result is consistent with our Supreme Court’s holding in Sackett II that new waiver forms are not required if the after-acquired vehicle clause provides continuous coverage. - 23 - J-A33014-15 Sackett III now have caused this Court, as here, in an almost mechanical fashion, to decide stacking and waiver issues on the manner by which a vehicle is added to a policy without an examination of the mechanics of a policy’s terms and whether those comport with the rationale of the Sackett II decision.12 In Bumbarger, this Court stated that when faced with analyzing a stacking issue, it must focus 2017The result is consistent with our Supreme Court’s holding in Sackett II that new waiver forms are not required if the after-acquired vehicle clause provides continuous coverage. - 23 - J-A33014-15 Sackett III now have caused this Court, as here, in an almost mechanical fashion, to decide stacking and waiver issues on the manner by which a vehicle is added to a policy without an examination of the mechanics of a policy’s terms and whether those comport with the rationale of the Sackett II decision.12 In Bumbarger, this Court stated that when faced with analyzing a stacking issue, it must focus | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Toner v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance
green
1 sentence2017Toner, 137 A.3d at 592 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Shipp v. Phoenix Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2017Shipp, 51 A.3d at 223 . 2017Id. at 223 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Stone v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2007We hold that the extension of coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle provision to a vehicle added to a preexisting multi-vehicle policy is not a new purchase of coverage for purposes of Section 1738(c), and thus, does not trigger an obligation on the part of the insurer to obtain new or supplemental UM/UIM stacking waivers. 5 However, where coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle clause is expressly made finite by the terms of the policy, see, e.g., Bird, 165 P.3d at 346-47 , Sackett I controls and requires the execution of a new UM/UIM stacking waiver upon the expiration of the automatic c 2007We hold that the extension of coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle provision to a vehicle added to a preexisting multi-vehicle policy is not a new purchase of coverage for purposes of Section 1738(c), and thus, does not trigger an obligation on the part of the insurer to obtain new or supplemental UM/UIM stacking waivers. [5] However, where coverage under an after-acquired-vehicle clause is expressly made finite by the terms of the policy, see, e.g., Bird, 165 P.3d at 346-47 , Sackett I controls and requires the execution of a new UM/UIM stacking waiver upon the expiration of the automatic | 1 | 2007–2007 |