Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1717 (2026)

Stacking of benefits.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1717. Stacking of benefits.

First party benefits shall not be increased by stacking the limits of coverage of:

(1) multiple motor vehicles covered under the same policy of insurance; or

(2) multiple motor vehicle policies covering the individual for the same loss.

(Feb. 12, 1984, P.L.53, No.12, eff. Oct. 1, 1984)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1984–2007 · leading case: Downing v. Harleysville Ins., 602 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Downing v. Harleysville Ins., 602 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 2× “For the reasons which follow, I conclude that such recovery was not precluded. First party benefits may not be increased by stacking the limits of coverage of multiple motor vehicle policies covering an individual for the same loss.”

Laguna v. Erie Ins. Grp., 536 A.2d 419 (Pa. 1988). · cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1717. Applying § 1717(2), Erie argues that Laguna is expressly prohibited from seeking to collect first party benefits under more than one insurance policy for the same loss.”

Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Loos Ex Rel. Loos, 476 F. Supp. 2d 478 (W.D. Pa. 2007). “Although defendants initially sought FPM benefits from plaintiff, they now concede that FPM benefits are precluded by 75 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1717, in light of the payments already made by Erie.”

Soles v. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Ins., 539 A.2d 1360 (Pa. 1988). · cites it 4× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1717 provides: § 1717. Stacking of benefits.”

Votedian v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 478 A.2d 1324 (Pa. 1984). “” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1717 (effective October 1, 1984).”

Kosor v. Harleysville Mut. Ins., 595 A.2d 128 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “However, we see no reason to remand to the court below to interpret the insurance policies which are unambiguous and which all parties concede are in existence.”

Byers v. Amerisure Ins., 745 F. Supp. 1073 (E.D. Pa. 1990). “75 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1717 (Purdon Supp.”

Neilson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 738 A.2d 490 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1717 (emphasis supplied). ¶ 6 The policy issued to Neilson by Nationwide does not reference Section 1717 of the MVFRL but does provide 3 , inter alia: PRIORITIES OF POLICIES We will pay first party benefits in accordance with the order of priorities set forth by law.”

North River Ins. v. Tabor, 744 F. Supp. 625 (M.D. Penn. 1990). “First, while the legislature specifically excluded the stacking of first party benefits in Section 1717 of the MVFRL, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1717 (Purdon Cum.Supp.”

Soles v. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Ins., 571 A.2d 378 (Pa. 1990). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1717. *282 Thus, any argument that stacking is permitted during a transitional period between the two acts is completely without foundation.”

Wolfe v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 23 Pa. D. & C.4th 549 (1993). · cites it 2× “” 75 Pa.C.S. §1717. In Laguna the plaintiff contended that section 1717(2) was inapplicable because the same loss was not involved because he was seeking recovery only for the medical bills which had not yet been paid — thus a different loss.”

Tallman v. Aetna, 1 Pa. D. & C.4th 447 (1987). “75 Pa.C.S. §1717(1). The legislature limited underin-surance recovery in a specific manner and did the same for multiple vehicles under one policy by express language.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1717(1) — 1 case

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1717(2) — 3 cases

Downing v. Harleysville Ins., 602 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). “For the reasons which follow, I conclude that such recovery was not precluded. First party benefits may not be increased by stacking the limits of coverage of multiple motor vehicle policies covering an individual for the same loss.”

Laguna v. Erie Ins. Grp., 536 A.2d 419 (Pa. 1988). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1717. Applying § 1717(2), Erie argues that Laguna is expressly prohibited from seeking to collect first party benefits under more than one insurance policy for the same loss.”

Wolfe v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 23 Pa. D. & C.4th 549 (1993). “” 75 Pa.C.S. §1717. In Laguna the plaintiff contended that section 1717(2) was inapplicable because the same loss was not involved because he was seeking recovery only for the medical bills which had not yet been paid — thus a different loss.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.