(5/18/2004) - A motoristâ€™s insurance form rejecting stacking for underinsured motorist benefits is not rendered void merely because it did not conform verbatim to the language contained in the statute, the Superior Court has ruled. In Vosk v. Encompass Insurance Co., the Superior Court on May 17, 2023 upheld the judgment of the trial court granting the insurance companyâ€™s preliminary objections and dismissed the plaintiffâ€™s complaint.
“We agree with the reasoning of the trial court, and its conclusion that the executed rejection form substantially complies with Section 1738,” wrote Judge John T.J. Kelly Jr. “We reject Appellantsâ€™ assertion that a minor deviation in the title of the executed form voids Appellantsâ€™ rejection of stacked benefits,” Kelly added.
The Vosks contended that their waiver of stacking did not comply with Section 1738(d)(2) because it was titled “Rejection of ‘Stacked Limitsâ€™ for Underinsured Motorist Coverage,” while the title in the statute is “UNDERSINSURED COVERAGE LIMITS.”
In footnote 3 of the opinion, the Court does indicate under what certain situations it will not hesitate to declare a form inoperative.
The Courtâ€™s ruling is similar to itâ€™s ruling last month in the case of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Seelye, which involved a waiver of stacking of insured coverage.