Lawsuit Allowed Against Both Negligent Driver & Client's Insurance Company

Until recently in Pennsylvania, anyone injured in a car accident or truck accident could only bring suit against the driver believed to be at fault. The insurance company representing the at-fault driver could not be named as a defendant, although the company would be responsible for paying the defendant’s lawyer and any settlement or judgment up to the amount of the liability insurance coverage. If the payment was believed to be inadequate, a claim could be brought against the client’s own insurance company if his or her policy had underinsured motorist coverage. Now a County Court Judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that an injured claimant can bring a claim against both the responsible driver and against the injured person’s own insurance company for underinsured motorist coverage in the same lawsuit.

The underlying personal injury case arose out of a collision in which the vehicle operated by the initial Defendant struck the rear of the vehicle operated by the Plaintiff. State Farm Insurance Company provided liability coverage to the Defendant, and in a separate policy, underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage to the Plaintiff. State Farm Insurance Company opposed the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint on the ground that the defendant driver would be extremely prejudiced in this case if the plaintiffs were allowed to join their UIM carrier on a breach of contract claim in the action.

This Court relied upon a Pennsylvania Court rule which states that it is permissible to join actions involving the same transaction or occurrence and the same factual questions of liability and damages. In this case, the court found that the auto accident and underinsured motorist claim arose out of the same occurrence — the motor vehicle accident — and involved the same factual questions of liability and damages. This Court also noted that a Pennsylvania rule of evidence prohibits evidence that a party was or was not insured when the purpose or effect would be to influence the findings regarding liability or damages. However, citing Commonwealth, Department of General Services v. United States Mineral Products Company, 809 A.2d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 202), the court said that when evidence of insurance is relevant to other issues in the case, it will not be barred merely because it might be prejudicial.

See: In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Pennsylvania, Civil Division – Law
Bradish-Klein and Klein vs. Donald Kennedy and State Farm Insurance Company, No. 11548 of 2009