BROADCASTS.com

b'

No UM/UIM Coverage Supports Denial & Starts Running of Limitations  

Statute of Limitations Ran From Denial of Claim  

In Glenna L. Novak And Estate Of Jeffery Leonard Novak, A/K/A Estate Of  Jeffery L. Novak By And Through Glenna L. Novak, Executrix v. Mutual  Benefit Insurance Company, No. 1592 MDA 2021, No. J-S23016-22, Superior  Court of Pennsylvania (October 14, 2022) when the plaintiffs lawyer  admitted a letter was a denial of a UM/UIM claim that denial started the  running of the statute of limitations.  Glenna L. Novak and the Estate of Jeffrey Leonard Novak (collectively  "Appellants") appealed from the order granting summary judgment in favor  of Mutual Benefit Insurance Company ("MBIC").  

FACTS  

In June 2011, Jeffrey Leonard Novak ("Decedent") was operating a  motorcycle when a vehicle driven by Roy E. Wright made a left turn  across Decedent\'s lane of travel, causing the motorcycle to strike the  vehicle. Decedent was thrown from his motorcycle and sustained injuries,  including severe head trauma, which resulted in death.  Appellants sought recovery from Wright, who had an insurance policy  through Progressive Specialty Insurance Company ("PSIG"). Wright\'s  policy had a bodily injury limit of $50,000, which PSIG tendered.  Appellants also submitted a claim for underinsured motorist ("UIM")  coverage under Decedent\'s motorcycle policy ("motorcycle policy"). The  motorcycle policy was issued by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company  ("PAIC"). PAIC informed Appellants that Decedent had rejected UIM  coverage. Appellants sued, contending the UIM rejection was ineffective,  and they eventually reached an agreement to resolve the suit for  $20,000.  Appellants\' counsel wrote to MBIC, which had issued insurance on two of  Appellants\' other vehicles, a car and a truck, seeking consent to settle  the two claims. In a letter dated October 3, 2012, MBIC stated the  motorcycle that Decedent was driving at the time of the accident was not  insured by MBIC. Therefore, MBIC explained, UIM coverage was not  available under its policy and its consent was not required for  settlement.  Appellants later made a claim to MBIC for UIM coverage under the  personal auto policy. MBIC denied UIM coverage, stating it had  previously denied coverage in the October 2012 letter, when it explained  that its consent was unnecessary for the settlements. Appellants sued  in February 2018 (six years after the first denial), and they filed a  complaint in May 2019. They alleged breach of contract, sought a  declaratory judgment, and requested damages for bad faith.