# State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Foster

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 30, 2005 · 585 Pa. 529

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753029

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee v. Lori FOSTER, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 30, 2005
- **Citations:** 585 Pa. 529; 889 A.2d 78; 2005 Pa. LEXIS 3214
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753029

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, subject to two conceptual differences.
First, the majority suggests that police notification is required by the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701-1799.7. See, e.g., Majority Opinion, 585 Pa. at 536-37, 889 A.2d at 82. I believe, however, that the statute delineates the minimum amount of coverage that insurance carriers must offer to policyholders, 1 as well as the most restrictive terms that insurers can impose relative to aspects of automobile insurance coverage, including uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. See 75 Pa.C.S.A § 1731. From this frame of reference, it seems to me that nothing precludes an insurer from omitting a police notification provision from the terms of coverage for losses attributable to uninsured motorists that it may provide.
Second, I am of the belief that, although the cost-containment objective of the MVFRL is well recognized, the statute’s remedial purposes should not be overlooked. Accord Burstein v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 570 Pa. 177, 203-04 , 809 A.2d 204, 220 (2002) (Saylor, J., dissenting) (“In the UM/UIM arena, competing policy concerns have been clearly identified — while frequently acknowledging the remedial purposes of the legislatively prescribed offer of UM/UIM insurance, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the legislative concern for the increasing cost of insurance as a central policy to be advanced by the MVFRL.” (citation omitted)). 2 I agree *539 with the majority, however, that the Legislature acted in furtherance of the cost-containment objective in structuring its requirement for insurers to offer uninsured motorist coverage in a way that authorizes policy terms withholding coverage in the absence of police notification. Further, I agree that such a plainly authorized coverage restriction may be enforced by the insurer consistent with the legislatively established public policy.
. The purchase of the offered uninsured motorist coverage (or of additional coverage) is, of course, optional. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731(a).
. I realize that I was in a dissenting position in Burstein; however, since Burstein’s issuance, the Court has offered additional expressions that appear to vary the respective emphasis on the cost-containment and remedial objectives. Compare, e.g., Majority Opinion, 585 Pa. at 532-36, 889 A.2d at 80-81 (focusing solely on the MVFRL’s cost-containment objective), with Hoffman v. Troncelliti, 576 Pa. 504 , 839 *539 A.2d 1013 (2003) (emphasizing the statute's remedial purposes and the requirement of liberal construction over the cost-containment objective in the context of the limited tort election under the MVFRL).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753029. Public record. Not legal advice.