A jury may decide whether a change to a Pennsylvania man’s automobile insurance policy, namely the addition of a “household exclusion” limitation, was a “material change,” or one that is more typical for such policies, a question that could ultimately determine whether the plaintiff may claim underinsured motorist benefits for an accident he was in several years ago.
The ruling from Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas Judge Thomas M. Piccione is one of several pretrial decisions in Oesterling v. Allstate Insurance. Earlier this year, President Judge Dominick Motto said Allstate Insurance Co. did not act in bad faith by denying UIM coverage to Robert Oesterling, whose policy was changed to incorporate the household exclusion in 2005, even though Oesterling’s original policy from 1998 did not have such a provision. Oesterling was injured in an accident in 2006 while riding a motor scooter that was not covered under his Allstate policy. He received notice of the addition of the household exclusion to his policy via an Allstate mailer, but has contested the adequacy of Allstate’s notice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
