Kline v. Travelers Pers. Sec. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 18 November 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 164 MDA 2019,No. 104 MDA 2019,104 MDA 2019,164 MDA 2019 |
Citation | 223 A.3d 677 |
Parties | Bradley E. KLINE, Appellee v. TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant Bradley E. Kline, Appellant v. Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company, Appellee |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Allison L. Krupp, Camp Hill, for Travelers.
Evan J. Kline III, York, for Kline.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Bradley E. Kline, and Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company ("Travelers"), appeal from the order entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas, in this declaratory judgment action, that granted partial summary judgment in favor of Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline, granted in part and denied in part Travelers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and entered final judgment against Travelers in the amount of $100,000.00, plus interests and costs. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand with instructions.
In its opinion, the trial court sets forth the relevant facts of this appeal as follows:
(Trial Court Opinion, filed December 18, 2018, at 2-4) (internal citations to record, some internal quotations omitted, some emphasis added). Ms. Kline's policy contained a "household vehicle exclusion" that reads in pertinent part:
(Declaratory Judgment Complaint, Exhibit "J"). Ms. Kline's policy defines "family member," in relevant part, as (Id. ).
(Trial Court Opinion, at 4-5). In his motion, Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline sought summary judgment on his claim for stacked UIM benefits under his Policy. Travelers sought summary judgment in its favor and against Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline's claims for stacked UIM benefits under the "continuous, non-finite, after-acquired vehicle provision" in his Policy. (See Travelers' Motion for Summary Judgment, 10/1/18, at 7 ¶35; R.R. at 167b.) Travelers also requested a declaration from the court that Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline was not entitled to UIM benefits under Ms. Kline's policy with Travelers, under the household exclusion provision in her policy, which operates to preclude coverage to Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline.
On December 18, 2018, the court entered an order that: (1) granted partial summary judgment in favor of Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline on his claim for stacked UIM benefits under his Policy; (2) denied in part summary judgment for Travelers, finding Travelers must provide Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline stacked UIM benefits under his Policy but granted summary judgment in part finding Travelers did not have to provide Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline stacked UIM under Ms. Kline's policy, due to the "household vehicle" exclusion provision in her policy; and (3) entered judgment in favor Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline and against Travelers in the amount of $100,000.00, which represented the remainder of the maximum available stacked UIM coverage under Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline's policy only, plus interest and costs.
Travelers timely filed a notice of appeal on January 16, 2019. The court ordered Travelers on January 17, 2019, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On January 29, 2019, Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline timely filed a notice of cross-appeal. The court ordered Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline on January 31, 2019, to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. Travelers and Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kline timely filed their Rule 1925(b) statements on February 6, 2019, and February 15, 2019, respectively. This Court consolidated the parties' appeals sua sponte on February 13, 2019. On March 5, 2019, the parties filed in this Court a joint application to amend the briefing schedule, which this Court granted on March 19,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ungarean v. CNA
...judgment action, we are limited to determining whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law." Kline , 223 A.3d at 684. We review the trial court's decision "as we would a decree in equity." Id . As such, we defer to the factual findings of the trial cou......
-
Pa. State Police v. Madden
...for the parties to present evidence and argument on the element of interstate commerce. See, e.g. , Kline v. Travelers Pers. Sec. Ins. Co. , 223 A.3d 677, 691 (Pa. Super. 2019) (vacating an order of the trial court and remanding based on new Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent given retroa......
-
Blizman v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.
...waiver form at the inception of his policy subsequently added two vehicles to the existing policy. Kline v. Travelers Personal Sec. Ins. Co. , 223 A.3d 677, 681 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). At the time the vehicles were added to the policy, the insured notified his insurance agent and amended Aut......
-
Ford v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.
...A.3d 797 (procurium) (2019), Rutt v. Donegal Mutual Ins. Co., Civ. No. 1902544, 2019 WL 4570159 (Lancaster CCP 2019), Kline v. Traveler s, 223 A.3d 677 (Pa. Super. 2019), and Donegal v. Krautsack, Civ. No. 19-04904 (Lancaster CCP ...