COVID-19 Resource Center

December 03, 2009

Court Upholds Venue Clause in Auto Insurance Policy

In the most recent appellate case addressing the new way of litigating UM/UIM matters in Pennsylvania, the Superior Court upheld the venue clause requiring that consumers file suit in the county in which he or she lives. A three-judge panel in the case of O'Hara v. First Liberty Insurance Corporation (PA Super., November 9, 2009 per judge Kelly) rejected arguments by the claimant that venue selection provisions are void as against public policy or in violation of Pennsylvania law (PA Rule of Civil Procedure 2179). In this case, a Philadelphia County venue preferred by the claimant was rejected. The case was transferred to Delaware County where the O'Hara's live. 

What It Means to You

Automoble insurance litigation was drastically changed in Pennsylvania by the Koken case (Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania v. Koken, 801 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2005). The O'Hara case is an example of the changes to PA law that will follow the Koken decision. Please contact any Cipriani & Werner attorney to discuss the questions you may have on a UM/UIM claim.


O’Hara v. First Liberty Insurance Corporation (PA Super., Nov. 9, 2009)