Facebook Icon Twitter Icon YouTube Icon Google Plus Icon LinkedIn Icon

IME Requirement in Auto Policy of is Void.

May 10th, 2017

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.

From the first meeting Ryan made me feel very comfortable, like I had known him for years. He made the whole process so easy to understand. He was also very flexible with appointments and times and very considerate of my time. I never expected it all to go so smoothly but Ryan went above and beyond the call of duty to take any additional pressure off of me.