In Sayles v. Allstate, 3:16-CV-01534, 2017 WL 1928408, (M.D. Pa. May 10, 2017), District Court Judge Caputo denied Allstate’s motion to dismiss in a potential class action based on a provision in Allstate’s policy that requires insureds to submit to an IME by a physician chosen by Allstate as a condition precedent to payment of medical expenses. §1796 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) permits an insurer to compel an IME only on a motion “for good cause shown.”
Judge Caputo predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find that the examination requirement in Allstate’s auto insurance policy conflicts with §1796 of the MVFRL and is therefore void. On May 24, 2017, Allstate filed a motion requesting permission to appeal the May 10, 2017 order, citing the conflicting decisions on this issue in both the state and federal courts.
