This case addressed the issue of whether auto accident claimants may stack UIM/UM coverage under commercial fleet auto policies. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously affirmed the Superior Court’s holding that the terms of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law do not mandate the stacking of UIM/UM coverage on commercial fleet policies. In Justice Cappy's decision, he does not, however, address the issue of what constitutes a “fleet” policy. 

What It Means to You

Obviously, an adverse ruling on this issue would have been catastrophic to carriers and the way they write fleet policies. This was essentially a common sense ruling. The lingering issue, however, will be the definition of a “fleet” policy. As with most coverage issues, clearly defined terms will control. The best strategy for successfully resolving coverage disputes is to have clear and unambiguous policy language though, there is room for further debate. Again, because future litigation for further clarification of what constitutes a “fleet” policy is likely, it will be important to monitor this line of cases.