An order of joinder could have permitted a couple’s underinsured motorist claim against their own insurer and their tort claim against the defendant tortfeasor to be tried together, a Montour County judge has ruled, but for a venue clause in the plaintiffs’ policy the judge said forced the litigation against their insurer to take place in their county of domicile.
Deciding that Pennsylvania jurisprudence favors consolidation when the issues in the motor vehicle claim and UIM claim involve the same questions of law or fact, Common Pleas Judge Gary E. Norton denied the insurer’s bid on preliminary objections to have the cases tried separately on the issue of joinder. Because of the venue clause, however, the decision does more to forge a body of post-Koken case law in Montour County than it does to keep the cases together.
