Baclit v. Sloan

1

W. SCOTT BACLIT, ADMINSTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY S. BACLIT v. STEVEN C. SLOAN, AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL, SEA SHELL BAR, INC., A CORPORATION, KENNETH KUGEL, AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL, AND UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION

APPEAL OF: UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY

W. SCOTT BACLIT, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY S. BACLIT, v. STEVEN C. SLOAN, AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL, SEA SHELL BAR, INC., A CORPORATION, KENNETH KUGEL, AND ADULT INDIVIDUAL, AND UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION

APPEAL OF: UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY

W. SCOTT BACLIT, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY S. BACLIT v. STEVEN C. SLOAN, AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL, SEA SHELL BAR, INC. A CORPORATION, KENNETH KUGEL, AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL, AND UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION

APPEAL OF: UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY

Nos. 793 WDA 2023, 794 WDA 2023, 795 WDA 2023

No. J-A06033-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 23, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered July 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Civil Division at No(s): 10675 of 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered June 5, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Civil Division at No(s): 10675 of 2022

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM

BECK J.

United Financial Casualty Company ("United") appeals from orders granting summary judgment in favor of W. Scott Baclit Administrator of the Estate of Timothy S. Baclit, ("Administrator") and denying United's motion for summary judgment.^[1] United claims that the commercial insurance policy issued to TKC Trucking, LLC ("TKC Trucking") did not cover its owner, Timothy S. Baclit ("Baclit"), individually, and therefore, Administrator is entitled to no recovery. Finding that Baclit is an "insured" entitled to receive stacked underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage under the Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"),^[2] we affirm.

The parties stipulated to the following facts. On December 5, 2021, Baclit sustained fatal injuries while aiding Steven Sloan ("Sloan"), who had been involved in a single car accident in Hopewell Township, Beaver County. Sloan's vehicle had crashed into a bridge retaining wall. Baclit, who had been driving the automobile owned by his mother Lorri A. Hagwood ("Hagwood"), exited the vehicle to provide assistance. While aiding Sloan, Baclit fell from the bridge retaining wall and suffered injuries resulting in his death.

Sloan maintained automobile liability coverage through Farmers Insurance ("Farmers") in the amount of $100,000. Farmers tendered the limits of the policy to Administrator. Hagwood's vehicle was insured under a multi-vehicle policy provided by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company ("State Farm") with stacked UIM limits of $300,000.^[3] As Sloan's policy was not sufficient to cover the damages sustained by Baclit, State Farm paid the limits in connection with Hagwood's policy. Baclit also insured his motorcycle through Progressive, which included $15,000 in UIM coverage. Progressive paid the limits to Administrator in accordance with this policy.

At the time of his death, Baclit was the president and sole officer of TKC Trucking, a trucking business. In October 2020, United issued a commercial automobile insurance policy to TKC Trucking (the "Policy"). In October 2021, United sent TKC Trucking a renewal declarations page, which renewed the Policy.

Under the Policy, TKC Trucking was the "named insured," and Baclit and Brian Matheny were designated as rated drivers. Policy Declarations Page, 10/2/2021, at 1-2. The Policy covered a 2008 GMC Sierra and a 2020 load trail trailer. Id. at 2-3. The Policy provided $100,000 of stacked UIM coverage for the 2008 GMC Sierra.^[4] Id. at 2.

Relevantly, the Policy stated the following regarding UIM coverage:

INSURING AGREEMENT - UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE

Subject to the Limits of Liability, if you pay the premium for Underinsured Motorist Coverage, we will pay for damages, other than punitive or exemplary damages, which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured auto because of bodily injury:

1. sustained by an insured;

2. caused by an accident; and

3. arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of an underinsured auto.

ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS

When used in this endorsement, whether in the singular, plural, or possessive:

1. "Insured" means:

a. if the named insured shown on the declarations page is a natural person:

(i) you or a relative;

(ii) any person occupying your insured auto or a temporary substitute auto; and

(iii) any person who is entitled to recover damages covered by this endorsement because of bodily injury sustained by a person described in (i) or (ii) above; or

b. if the named insured shown on the declarations page is a corporation, partnership, organization, or any other entity that is not a natural person:

(i) any person occupying your insured auto or a temporary substitute auto; and

(ii) any person who is entitled to recover damages covered by this endorsement because of bodily injury sustained by a person described in (i) above.

Policy, 10/2/2021, at 43-44 (emphasis omitted).^[5] Additionally, the Policy defines "insured auto" or "your insured auto" as, in pertinent part, "[a]ny auto specifically described on the declarations page[.]" Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted). Further, "'You, 'your' and 'yours' refer to the named insured shown on the declarations page." Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted).

On April 14, 2022, Administrator sent a letter to United demanding UIM payment under the Policy. By letter dated April 19, 2022, United responded to Administrator's UIM demand, stating the following:

As previously noted, the handling of this claim is conducted under a Reservation of Rights. To date, our preliminary investigation indicates the policy may not provide coverage for this loss because it does not appear that [] Baclit will meet the definition of an "insured" per the policy language cited above nor does he appear to be "occupying" an insured auto or temporary substitute auto.

United Letter, 4/19/2022. Administrator provided United additional documentation on the claim and requested United confirm its position regarding UIM coverage. United ultimately denied Administrator's claim for coverage, stating:

As the [automobile] [] Baclit drove to the scene of the incident is not a listed vehicle, it does not meet the definition of an insured auto nor does it meet the definition of a temporary substitute auto per the policy language. Also, [] Baclit was not occupying an insured auto when the loss occurred. [United] will not be responsible to pay for [UIM] Coverage to the Estate of Timothy Baclit as a result of this loss.

United Letter, 6/14/2022.

Administrator filed a complaint against United, which Administrator later amended, asserting claims of breach of contract, bad faith, wrongful death, and survival. Subsequently, United filed a motion for summary judgment as to Administrator's claims and Administrator filed a motion for summary judgment as to his breach of contract claim. As noted above, the trial court granted Administrator's motion for summary judgment and denied United's motion for summary judgment.

United filed a motion for reconsideration or motion for certification of interlocutory appeal. In response, the trial court severed the claims against United from the claims raised in the amended complaint against the other defendants, and Administrator withdrew the bad faith, wrongful death, and survival claims against United. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order stating that its entry of summary judgment was a final order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(b)(1). United then timely appealed and complied with the court's order for the filing of a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

On appeal, United raises the following questions for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that [Baclit] is entitled to [UIM] coverage without a requisite finding that [Baclit] met the definition of an "Insured" under the [United] Policy?

2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the issue before it was one of first impression when various courts applying Pennsylvania law in analogous factual circumstances addressed the question of whether such claimants are entitled to UIM coverage and held that they are not?

3. Whether the trial court erred by relying on inapposite cases which discussed UIM exclusions and "stacking" issues?

4. Whether the trial court erred in denying [United's] Motion for Summary Judgment by basing its conclusion on the mistaken belief that the additional benefit of stacked coverage on the Policy was "illusory"?

United's Brief at 4.

Our standard of review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment is as follows:

We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered.

Our scope of review of a trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court's order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.

Erie Ins. Exch. v. Eachus, 306 A.3d 930, 932-33 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted).

"Additionally we note that...