John M. Campbell, Esq. and Darren L. Harrison, Esq., partners in the firm’s Philadelphia office, successfully argued an appeal before the Pennsylvania Superior Court which affirmed summary judgment obtained in favor of our client on an insurance coverage issue of first impression.
In Goodville Mutual Casualty Company v. McNear, 332 A.3d 849, 2025 PA Super 48 (Pa. Super. Feb. 26, 2025), Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied, 2025 WL 2836053 (Table) (Pa. Oct. 7, 2025), the Superior Court held that the sign-down form requesting less-than-full UIM coverage remained effective through several renewals without the need for Goodville to obtain a new election of coverage.
The McNears insured their vehicles through Goodville between 2012 and 2018. In 2012, Karen McNear initially signed an election form for less-than-full UIM coverage, and she selected benefits of $50,000 each person/$100,000 each accident stacked across the three vehicles covered by the policy. The McNears renewed their policy every six months, and between 2012 and 2018, added and removed vehicles, with the policy covering as many as four and as few as two vehicles. Goodville did not obtain new limited UIM elections when the McNears added vehicles to their policy, nor did the McNears affirmatively request changes to their UIM benefits or other coverages.
In 2018, Mallory McNear was injured in a motor vehicle accident and recovered the limits of the other driver’s policy. She then filed a UIM claim with Goodville Mutual. Because the McNears owned three vehicles, Goodville paid her $150,000, based on the stacked $50,000 UIM benefits the McNears originally selected in 2012.
The McNears disputed this amount, asserting the additions of vehicles to their policy constituted new “purchases” of coverage which required Goodville to obtain new UIM selections. The McNears claimed that because Goodville failed to secure new election forms, it was obligated to pay full UIM benefits up to the bodily injury benefits of their policy, i.e., $250,000 stacked across three vehicles, or $750,000.
Goodville rejected the claim for the $750,000 UIM benefits and commenced a declaratory judgment action. The Court ultimately granted summary judgment to Goodville and the McNears appealed to the Superior Court.
The McNears relied on Barnard v. Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., 654 Pa. 604, 216 A.3d 1045 (2019), a “stacking” case in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that an insured’s decision to increase UIM benefits constituted a “purchase” of coverage and required an insurer to offer the insured a new opportunity to waive stacking under 75 Pa. C.S.A Section 1738.
On February 26, 2025, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The Superior Court rejected the McNears’ arguments and held that Section 1734 does not refer to a “purchase” of coverage by the insured. The Court therefore held that once Karen McNear selected limited UIM benefits when applying for original coverage, Goodville was entitled to presume that her selection remained effective until affirmatively changed by a named insured.
The McNears’ Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied on October 7, 2025. Accordingly, the Superior Court’s decision remains binding law. The decision is attached below.
This decision is a significant victory for Goodville and the insurance industry as a whole. If the McNears had been successful, carriers may have faced significant exposure in future UIM claims.
If you have any questions about this case, please contact John Campbell, Esq. at JCampbell@c-wlaw.com or Darren Harrison, Esq. at DHarrison@c-wlaw.com.