Hart v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 August 1995
• Citation: 663 A.2d 682,541 Pa. 419
• Parties: Clarence HART and Emma Hart v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 682

663 A.2d 682

541 Pa. 419

Clarence HART and Emma Hart v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 25, 1995.

Decided Aug. 25, 1995.

Appeal from No. 88 E.D.Appeal Dkt.1994, appeal from the Superior Court entered May 5, 1994, at No. 2463 Philadelphia 1993, 436 Pa.Super. 652, 647 A.2d 270. Affirming Order of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Civil Division, entered June 14, 1993, at No. 27-1993.

Charles W. Craven, Christine M. Brenner, Philadelphia, for Nationwide Ins.

James McEvilly, Jr., Lancaster, for C. & E. Hart.

Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE and MONTEMURO, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Order of Superior Court reversed. See Windrim v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 537 Pa. 129, 641 A.2d 1154 (1994).

CAPPY, J., files a dissenting statement.

MONTEMURO, J., is sitting by designation.

CAPPY, Justice, dissenting.

Contrary to the position of the Majority of this Court, I do not believe that the instant matter is governed by this Court's recent decision in Windrim v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 537 Pa. 129, 641 A.2d 1154 (1994). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Majority's per curiam order.

In the instant matter, Hart sustained serious injuries when the vehicle he owned and operated was struck by a vehicle being driven by an intoxicated individual. Hart recovered the policy limits of $15,000 from the other driver's insurance carrier. At the time of the accident, Hart himself was insured under a policy of insurance issued by Pennsylvania National Insurance Company. Although Hart's insurance policy was in compliance with the law, he had chosen not to purchase uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in accordance with the amendments to the MVFRL which became effective July 1, 1990. ¹ However, Hart's daughter, who resided with Mr. Hart and his wife, was insured under a separate policy of insurance which did provide un/underinsured coverage. Hart thus sought underinsured motorist benefits under his daughter's policy of insurance issued by Nationwide. Nationwide denied coverage on the basis of the following exclusion in the Underinsured section of the Nationwide policy:

This coverage does not apply to:

Bodily injury suffered while occupying a motor vehicle owned by you or a relative but not insured for Underinsured Motorists coverage under this policy; nor to bodily injury from being hit by any such motor vehicle.

The matter then proceeded to arbitration following which the arbitrators held that the exclusion was void, awarding Hart $300,000. The Court of Common Pleas subsequently denied Nationwide's Petition to Modify, Vacate or Correct the Arbitrators' decision. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed also holding that the exclusion was here void as against the public policy of the MVFRL.

The Majority, in its per curiam reversal, cites Windrim, supra, as the basis for reversing. Windrim is, however, factually distinguishable in critical respects. Windrim, who was driving his own registered but uninsured vehicle when he was allegedly struck by an unidentified hit-and-run driver was himself in violation of the MVFRL which at the time of that accident required that all owners of registered vehicles carry liability as well as un/underinsured coverage. Windrim, who had no other source of benefits, sought uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by Nationwide to Windrim's mother with whom Windrim resided. Nationwide denied coverage based upon an exclusion similar to that at issue in the case sub judice. This Court held that the exclusion was there valid, finding that to deny benefits to owners such as Windrim would promote the goals of the MVFRL, one of which is to deter...