![]()
Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
63.1. Policies to which coverage shall be attached.
63.2. Extent of coverage to be offered.
63.3. Minimum coverage.
Authority The provisions of this Chapter 63 issued under act of August 14, 1963 (P. L. 909, No. 433) (40 P. S. § 2000), unless otherwise noted.
Source The provisions of this Chapter 63 adopted December 4, 1963, unless otherwise noted.
Notes of Decisions Scope of Regulation
The provisions of this § 63.2 amended through June 15, 1979, effective June 16, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 1876. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (37810).
Notes of Decisions
Arbitration
In the absence of a statutory requirement, arbitration may not be required by regulation. To require by regulation what the legislature omitted from statute was an unlawful delegation of powers to the Insurance Commissioner. McFarley v. American Indep. Ins. Co., 663 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 1995).
The regulatory requirement of an arbitration provision was not grounds to require a third party to participate in arbitration under an uninsurance claim; and in the absence of a statutory requirement that the appellee submit the uninsured motorist claim to an arbitration procedure, the appellees right to a jury trial could not be abridged where no actual contract existed between the parties. Johnson v. Pennsylvania National Insurance Companies, 557 A.2d 789 (Pa. Super. 1989).
Insurance Department had authority under 40 P. S. § 2000 to adopt this regulation which requires inclusion of an arbitration clause in Uninsured Motorist Coverage; the arbitration requirement did not violate the rights to jury trial under the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Muir, 513 A.2d 1129 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Although insurers assigned under the Pennsylvania Assigned Claims Plan were obligated to pay Uninsured Motorist Benefits as if a basic loss policy had been issued, in such cases arbitration could not be required by this regulation, since the regulation would be an unlawful exercise of power not delegated under the statute and since even legislative requirement of arbitration in such circumstances would be an unconstitutional infringement of the right to trial by jury. Johnson v. The Travelers, 502 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 1985).
In denying recovery against uninsured motorist benefits where the motorist carried the legal minimum of insurance, the Court noted that it could review the arbitrators award under the standards of the act of April 25, 1927 (P. L. 381, No. 248) (5 P. S. § § 161181) (Repealed), permitting reversal for errors of law, rather than under the narrower standards for reviewing common-law arbitration, which is prescribed by subsection (a), because the appellant failed to raise the issue below and because the appellants petition specifically stated that the arbitration was under the act of April 25, 1927 (P. L. 381, No. 248) (5 P. S. § § 161181) (Repealed). McDonald v. Keystone Insurance Co., 459 A.2d 1292 (Pa. Super. 1983).
Coverage Unavailable
A school district bus drivers exclusive remedy for injuries sustained in the course and scope of employment was under the Pennsylvania Workmens Compensation Act (77 P. S. § 1 et seq.) and therefore the bus driver could not make a claim under the act of August 14, 1963. Lewis v. School District of Philadelphia, 538 A.2d 862 (Pa. 1988).
Double CoverageAn exclusion in a policy substantially similar, but not identical to the one in the sample form and which reached the same result of denying double recovery for the same injury under an uninsured motorist provision, did not violate Insurance Department regulations. Adelman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 386 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 1978).
Evidence
Although an insurance policys definition of uninsured motor vehicle was in accord with the Insurance Departments definitions, neither the policy definition nor the Departments definition addressed the type or quality of proof necessary to prove uninsuredness. Meerzon v. Erie Insurance Company, 551 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. 1988).
Excess Coverage
A statement providing that, If the injured person was occupying a vehicle you do not own which is insured for this coverage under another policy, this coverage will be excess. This means that when you are legally entitled to recover damages in excess of the other policy limit, we will pay the amount by which the limit of liability of this policy exceeds the limit of liability of that policy, was the precise type of excess coverage clause authorized by 31 Pa. Code. Brissett v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 513 A.2d 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Exemptions
Since the Commissioner may not grant an exemption contrary to the legislative intent expressed in the statutory provision to which the regulation relates, the approval of an insurance policy by the Commissioner cannot amount to an exemption from the requirements of the Uninsured Motorist Act. Wilbert v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., 385 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 1978).
Interpretation of Policies
Policy language which purports to entitle an insurer to a trial de novo if an arbitration award exceeds the limits required under the Financial Responsibility Law improperly modifies the minimum coverage requirements under this section, and is therefore void. Hoerst v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 624 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 1993).
Judicial Review
A judicial determination of the legality of a policy limitation clause challenged on the contention that it did not contain an exemption to the exclusion as set forth in Exhibit C, III(b) of this regulation cannot be made on the basis of a board of arbitrators order to vacate an award which order was entered without an opinion or explanation. Gallagher v. Educator and Executive Insurers, Inc., 381 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 1977).
Jurisdiction
If an insured claims that a vehicle was insured according to the Insurance Commissioners regulations but was nonetheless uninsured according to 40 P. S. § 2000(a), jurisdiction is properly in the court rather than in the arbitrators. Balboa Insurance Co. v. Amity, 446 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Super. 1982).
Regulations Invalid
Regulations promulgated by the Insurance Commissioner which authorized insurance companies to use territorial limitations were invalid as contrary to the legislative intent of the statutory provisions. Hall v. America Mutual Insurance Co., 625 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 1993).
Set-off Provisions
Insurance company was not obligated by the policy of insurance issued to the injured parties to provide uninsured motorist benefits to appellees where the policy clearly provided that all sums paid under the liability coverage of the policy would be deducted from any sums payable under the uninsured motorist coverages. Pempkowski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 678 A.2d 398 (Pa. 1996).
Territorial Exclusions
A territorial exclusion, such as that provided for in this regulation, was neither invalid under the Uninsured Motorist Coverage Act (40 P. S. § 2000) nor void as against public policy. Fulton v. Allstate Insurance Co., 17 Pa. D. & C.3d 316 (1980).
The territorial exclusion violates the legislative intent to provide wide protection in uninsured motorist cases and was invalid. Schmitt v. Hertz Autovermietung GMBH No. 2, 6 Pa. D. & C.3d 410 (1978).
Uninsured Motorist Coverage
It is not against public policy for an insurer to reduce uninsured motorist coverage payments made to a guest passenger with liability coverage payments made under the same policy to the same guest passenger if both host driver and another uninsured driver are jointly liable for the injuries suffered by the passenger. Jeffery v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 621 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. 1993).
If plaintiffs suffer injuries as a result of a collision with an underinsured motorist, they may not recover under the uninsured motorist provision of their insurance policy. Balboa Insurance Co. v. Amity, 446 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Super. 1982).
Uninsured automobile in Exhibit C, II(c) of of this regulation was defined to apply to an automobile with no insurance coverage whatsoever. It did not include an automobile which was insured but, due to a catastrophic accident, rendered the liability coverage required by state law inadequate to compensate all victims for all losses. White v. Concord Mut. Ins. Co., 442 A.2d 713 (Pa. Super. 1982), affirmed 454 A.2d 982 (Pa. 1982).
An insurance company may contractually divide the uninsured motorist coverage in two or more automobile insurance policies issued to members of the same household in order to prevent cumulation of coverage without contravening the uninsured motorist law. Adelman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 386 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 1978).
An insurance company was required by the Uninsured Motorist Act to furnish uninsured motorist coverage to individuals occupying an uninsured automobile owned by the insured party or the insureds family and the contract cannot be abrogated by lack of premium where the insurer did not offer the insured the opportunity to pay a premium. Wilbert v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., 385 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 1978).
§ 63.3. Minimum coverage.
(a) The Insurance Department will require the coverage set forth in the form in Exhibit C as the minimum coverage which will be approved by the Department as satisfactorily complying with the requirements of act of August 14, 1963 (P. L. 909, No. 433) (40 P. S. § 2000).
(b) A company or bureau which has already received approval of a form providing this coverage may certify in writing, signed by an officer of the company or bureau, that the approved form meets the minimum requirements of this chapter, if such is the case.
(c) The limits of liability for bodily injury or death shall be at least the limits required from time to time by the General Assembly in section 1421 of the Vehicle Code (75 P. S. § 1421) (Repealed).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.