Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1734 (2026)
Request for lower limits of coverage.
✓ 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
§ 1734. Request for lower limits of coverage.
A named insured may request in writing the issuance of coverages under section 1731 (relating to availability, scope and amount of coverage) in amounts equal to or less than the limits of liability for bodily injury.
(Feb. 7, 1990, P.L.11, No.6, eff. July 1, 1990)
Cross References. Section 1734 is referred to in section 1731 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Transguard Ins. Co. of Am., Inc. v. Hinchey.
Transguard Ins. Co. of Am., Inc. v. Hinchey (M.D. Penn. 2006). “Plaintiff argued the e-mail satisfied the statutory requirements for a request for UIM coverage in an amount less than the bodily injury limit under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S. § 1734. Id. In contrast,…”
Orsag v. Farmers New Century Ins. (Pa. 2011). “" 75 Pa.C.S. § 1734. Despite the legislature's detailed requirements for rejecting UM/UIM coverage in 75 Pa.”
Lewis v. Erie Ins. Exch. (Pa. 2002). “§ 1731; Section 1731’s prescription of technical requirements governing requests for waiver/rejection, including the single-page criterion prescribed by Section 1731(c.”
Generette v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. (Pa. 2008). “In December 1985, however, Appellant executed a waiver form reducing her UM coverage from $100,000 to $35,000, in accordance with 75 Pa.C.S. § 1734, permitting the reduction of UM coverage below the level of liability coverage.”
Eileen Gibson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. I (3rd Cir. 2021). “” 75 Pa. C.S. § 1734. The statute says little beyond that.”
Peele v. Atl. Express Transp. Grp., Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). “A written request for lower UM/UIM coverage limits is authorized in Pennsylvania by 75 Pa.C.S. § 1734. 2 ¶ 6 Appellant argues that, under these circumstances, the trial court erred in “reforming” the Atlantic policy to provide more than the requested $35,000 UM/UIM coverage…”
Johnson v. Pennsylvania Nat'l Ins. Companies (Pa. 1991). “75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1734 and 1715. The Act does not state whether arbitration is required for claims made under the uninsured motorist or underinsured motorist provisions of insurance policies.”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Catalini (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). “Catalini’s request to increase bodily injury liability coverage triggered the statutory requirement for an election for reduced UIM coverage pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1734. If a new election was not needed, we do not confront the subsidiary question regarding whether his signed…”
Hartford Ins. v. O'Mara (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “Appellee demanded that Hartford produce proof of a reduction of benefits in writing pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1734. When sufficient proof was not provided by Hartford, [A]ppellee demanded arbitration pursuant to the terms and provisions of the insurance policy.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Hughes (E.D. Pa. 2006). “” See 75 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1734 (superseded). At the time State Farm issued the policies to the Hugheses in 1987, the pertinent provisions of the MVFRL provided: § 1731.”
Tallman v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (Pa. 1988). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1734. The minimum limit for bodily injury financial responsibility is $15,000 because of injury to one person in any one accident and $30,000 because of injury to two or more persons in any one accident.”
Ewart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (E.D. Pa. 2017). “75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1734 . The insured may waive stacked uninsured motorist coverage by signing and returning a rejection form which complies with the MVFRL.”
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.