Scott Cooper, Schmidt Kramer

In 2018, Cooper, who focuses his practice on auto insurance law, argued before the state Supreme Court the case, Gallagher v. GEICO. The issue was whether an exclusion ubiquitous in Pennsylvania insurance policies took away statutorily mandated coverage. Cooper talked about this potential problem for years, and watched Supreme Court decisions for the inclination of our justices to hear the argument. The opportunity finally came in April 2018.

Brian Gallagher was riding a motorcycle when he was hit by a car. He had two GEICO insurance policies. One on his motorcycle and one on his two other cars. He paid for additional coverage by “stacking” underinsured motorist coverage on each of the policies. GEICO had an exclusion that disallowed stacking on vehicles in the same household insured on different policies. For Gallagher it was a question of $200,000. If GEICO was right, he paid for $200,000 of coverage he could not use. If Cooper was right, Gallagher would get what he paid for.

Section 1738 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) mandates stacked underinsured motorist coverage unless specifically waived. Cooper argued GEICO's exclusion acted as a de facto waiver of coverage mandated by the statute. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed. Justice Max Baer wrote GEICO's, “… household exclusion violates the MVFRL.” With that sentence, the court opened $200,000 of coverage to Gallagher justifying the premium he had paid, and restored benefits Pennsylvanians had paid for, but had not been able to access for more than two decades.

Gallagher v. GEICO, reshaped auto insurance law. This case has broad implications, and affects many households throughout the commonwealth.

How did you develop your practice?

I developed my practice through relationship building and enjoying what I do. I started with trying to learn as much as I could about motor vehicle accident cases and auto insurance law and, at the same time, watching how the courts work.

The “household exclusion” at issue in the insurance policy in Gallagher is ubiquitous and you had believed for some time that such exclusions were a violation of the MVFRL. What made Gallagher the right case for finally bringing that issue to the state Supreme Court?

Gallagher was an excellent set of facts to argue and prove to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the household exclusion is contrary to the mandates of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Mr. Gallagher paid for stacking, fully insured all of his vehicles, and the insurance company admitted in the record what everyone knew, which was that motorcycles were not placed on separate policies due to risk.

What is the best advice you ever received?

The best advice I ever received was remember your credibility is the most important thing you will ever have, do not be lazy, and listen to what people are saying because that is usually more than what you say.