Photo: Shutterstock

Defendants in a cluster of class action lawsuits filed in the wake of a “seismic” Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on stacking have removed the cases to federal court.

Five insurance companies were sued last month in state court after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the household vehicle exclusion cannot be used to bar stacked coverage. But earlier this month, the three national carriers, Geico, Allstate and USAA, have each removed the lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The three defendants all argued in court papers that the cases needed to be handled in federal court because there was complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Each plaintiff in the cases, Stockdale v. Allstate, Koehler v. USAA, and Butta v. Geico, is a Pennsylvania resident, but Allstate argued it is a citizen of Illinois, USAA contended it is a Texas citizen, and Geico argued it is a citizen of Maryland.

The discrepancies, the defendants argued, created the diversity citizenship.

Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. and Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., which are both based in Pennsylvania, were also sued in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, but those defendants have not attempted to remove the cases against them to federal court.

The class action lawsuits, filed in January, seek compensation for anyone who had their stacking benefits denied due to a household vehicle exclusion in the policy. Those exclusions had typically been used to deny cover for injuries that occurred in vehicles owned by family members, but not specifically named in the policy.

The lawsuits were filed immediately after the Supreme Court's Jan. 23 ruling in Gallagher v. Geico, which held that a household exclusion in a policy issued by Geico violated the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law because it acted as a “de facto waiver” of stacked coverage.

Although attorneys from the plaintiffs and defense bars offered different opinions about exactly how Gallagher should be interpreted, nearly all attorneys who spoke with The Legal in the wake of the ruling agreed that the 13-page opinion, written by Justice Max Baer, was sweeping.

The ruling reversed a Superior Court decision, which had relied on two prior Supreme Court decisions that had both failed to achieve a majority, and, according to several attorneys, the January ruling marked a significant departure from precedent.

A footnote in the opinion also demonstrated how broadly the ruling should be interpreted.

“As in every case, we are deciding the discrete issue before the court and holding that the household vehicle exclusion is unenforceable because it violates the MVFRL,” Baer said.

Although Gallagher involved a man who sought benefits after being injured in a motorcycle accident, attorneys agreed the ruling is not limited to cases involving motorcycle policies, but invalidated the exclusion in any situation where a driver seeks to recover stacked benefits.

According to the lawyers who filed the suits, James Haggerty of Haggerty, Goldberg, Schleifer & Kupersmith and Schmidt Kramer attorney Scott Cooper, the class actions were necessary to identify anyone who has had their claim rejected under the clause, because, depending on how the Supreme Court's sweeping opinion will be interpreted, the claims may stretch back to 1990.

Cooper on Thursday said the plaintiffs likely won't fight the venue change.

Mark Levin of Ballard Spahr, who is representing Allstate; Kutak Rock attorney Michael McDonnell, who is representing USAA; and Geico's attorney, Kymberly Kochis of Eversheds Sutherland, each did not return a call seeking comment.