Facebook Icon Twitter Icon YouTube Icon Google Plus Icon LinkedIn Icon

Police Officers’ Rights to Underinsured Motorists Benefits

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down 2 decisions on 10/19/11, relating to police officers’ rights to underinsured motorists benefits.

In Williams v. GEICO the Court decided the validity of an exclusion in trooper Williams’ personal automobile insurance policy that denied his claim for underinsured motorists benefits because he was injured while occupying an automobile that he regularly used but don’t own, i.e. his police vehicle. Freeburn Law filed an amicus brief in support of trooper Williams’ appeal on behalf of Pennsylvania State Troopers Association. We argued that this exclusion should be invalidated because it effectively denies Pennsylvania State Police troopers the opportunity to obtain underinsured motorist coverage when they are in their police vehicles. Unfortunately, this exclusion had been previously upheld on numerous occasions on the basis of insurance cost containment, and the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion again in this case. The opinion was authored by Orie Melvin and was joined by Castille,Eakin and Baer. Saylor, Baer and Todd filed concurring opinions. McCaffery joined Todd’s concurring opinion.

In Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities the Court went our way. This case involved a police officer with Sugar Creek Borough police department who was injured in the course of his employment. The underinsured motorist coverage provided by his employer contained an exclusion if the claimant was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. In other words, under this exclusion, the perpetrator in the back seat of the police vehicle would be eligible for underinsured motorists benefits because he would not be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, but the but the officer would not be entitled to underinsured motorists benefits because he was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. The Court held that this exclusion violated public policy and was invalid. This opinion was authored by Orie Melvin, joined by Eakin, Baer, Todd and McCaffery. Saylor dissented and Castille joined the dissent.

At 70yrs. of age, I have never been in a car accident, nor have I ever had a moving violation! So, needless to say, that the trauma of being involved in an accident that I did not cause, where my car, (which was only 6mos. old) was totaled!) and I received 2 broken bones in my left ankle that warrented surgery…was nothing short of devastating! It’s been 9mos. and I’m still healing! But while I was in the ER, the only injury attorney’s name and number that came to my mind was Freeburn and the 7’s! Well, in came Ryan McDaniels, and ever since that initial encounter at my home, I was thoroughly convinced that the Lord had orchestrated it! This young man’s demeanor, personality, and integrity was awesome! He kept me well informed and I trusted him emphatically! Not only him, but everyone in their office, showed me the utmost respect and courtesies! I would, without any reservations, refer anyone who asked me, to this firm! They made for me a wonderful experience from the most devastatingly, traumatic situation I’ve ever had! Definitely 2 thumbs up!