stating that the court had jurisdiction to review whether the “Who Is Insured” definition in the policy impermis-sibly narrowed and conflicted with the plain language of the MVFRL and, as such, was enforceable and void as against public policy
How later courts described this case
- stating that the court had jurisdiction to review whether the “Who Is Insured” definition in the policy impermis-sibly narrowed and conflicted with the plain language of the MVFRL and, as such, was enforceable and void as against public policy
- reiterating that a common law arbitration award is not reviewable for an error of law
- invalidating a policy which construed the term "motor vehi-ele” and “insured” more narrowly than permitted by statute
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
DEL SOLE, P.J.:
¶ 1 I join the Majority opinion but write separately to address the suggestion of my colleague Judge Lally-Green that the discussion of whether a separate “motorcycle exclusion” would violate public policy is not necessary to the decision in this case.
¶ 2 The thrust of Prudential’s argument en banc involved the portability issue. Specifically, Prudential grounded its argument on that portion of Prudential Prop, and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Colbert, 572 Pa. 82 , 813 A.2d 747 (2002), which held that “household exclusions” are not void as vio-lative of public policy since cost containment was one of the purposes of the MVFRL.
¶ 3 In requesting en banc certification, Prudential asked that we not only find in its favor but that we expressly disapprove of our holding in Prudential Prop, and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ziatyk, 793 A.2d 965 (Pa.Super.2002) appeal denied 572 Pa. 708 , 813 A.2d 843 (2002). To address this argument it is essential to distinguish the cases by focusing on the express language of § 1731(a) and (c) of the MVFRL and the holding in Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 567 Pa. 514 , 788 A.2d 955 (2001).
¶4 Also, it is appropriate to note that insureds who are passengers in or on vehicles they do not own are not able to purchase separate UM7UIM coverage to protect themselves while in or on these vehicles. Rather, they can only do so under their liability insurance policy. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1736.
¶ 5 Therefore, I do not agree with the suggestion that the Majority Opinion needlessly opines on matters not necessary for a decision in this case.