Erie Ins. Exch. v. Backmeier

287 A.3d 931

ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

v.Elizabeth BACKMEIER, Individually and in Her Capacity as the Executrix of the Estate of Andrew J. Backmeier Appellant

No. 323 WDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued September 20, 2022

Filed December 28, 2022

Craig R. F. Murphey, Erie, for appellant.

Glen Shikunov, Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and COLINS, J.^*

OPINION BY OLSON, J:

Appellant, Elizabeth Backmeier, individually and in her capacity as the executrix of the Estate of Andrew J. Backmeier, appeals from a March 7, 2022 declaratory judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County. The judgment awarded $100,000.00 in favor of Appellant, and against Erie Insurance Exchange ("Erie Insurance"), after the trial court granted Erie Insurance's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Appellant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the factual history as follows:

The facts of this case are undisputed. On September 25, 2020, [Appellant's son,] Andrew Backmeier, was riding his bicycle when he was struck[ and killed] by the [underinsured motorist's] vehicle. [Appellant] sought recovery through her insurance carrier[, Erie Insurance,] for underinsured motorist [("UIM")] coverage [ ] provided by her two insurance policies[.] The two [insurance] policies each provided $100,000[.00] in UIM benefits per [person], $300,000[.00] per occurrence, unstacked. [Appellant] executed stacking waivers on both policies. Both [insurance] policies contained a "Limit of Protection" provision which capped total recovery under all household policies at the highest limit available under any single policy. [Erie Insurance] tendered a total of $100,000[.00] of UIM coverage ($50,000[.00] from each policy) pursuant to the "Limit of Protection" clause[.]

Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/22, at 1.

On July 21, 2021, Erie Insurance filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Appellant, asking the trial court to declare, inter alia , that Appellant's total recovery of UIM benefits under the applicable insurance policies should be set at $100,000.00. Erie Insurance's Complaint, 7/21/21, at 6. On September 21, 2021, Appellant filed an answer to the complaint, as well as a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, asking the trial court to declare that the total recovery of UIM benefits due under the applicable insurance policies should be set at $200,000.00. Appellant's Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim, 9/21/21, at unnumbered page 5. Erie Insurance filed a reply to Appellant's counterclaim on October 8, 2021, which raised, as new matter, the assertion that, inter alia , Appellant's counterclaim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to the terms of the two applicable insurance policies. Erie Insurance's Reply and New Matter, 10/8/21, at 6-8. Appellant filed a reply to Erie Insurance's new matter on October 26, 2021.

On November 22, 2021, Erie Insurance filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as a brief in support thereof. On January 7, 2022, the trial court granted Erie Insurance's motion for judgment on the pleadings. In its order, the trial court noted that Appellant did not file a response to Erie Insurance's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Trial Court Order, 1/7/22. On January 13, 2022, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's January 7, 2022 order, asserting that the parties stipulated Appellant had until January 23, 2022, to file a response to Erie Insurance's motion for judgment on the pleadings and that the trial court granted said motion prematurely without providing Appellant the opportunity to file a response by the agreed upon date. Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration, 1/7/22. On January 13, 2022, the trial court granted Appellant's motion for reconsideration and vacated its January 7, 2022 order. Trial Court Order, 1/13/22. On January 21, 2022, Appellant filed (1) a motion for leave to file an amended answer, new matter, and counterclaim to Erie Insurance's complaint, having attached thereto a copy of the proposed answer; (2) a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings; and (3) a response in opposition to Erie Insurance's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On January 28, 2022, the trial court granted Appellant's motion to file an amended answer, new matter, and counterclaim, which Appellant filed that same day. On February 2, 2022, Erie Insurance filed a response, as well as a brief, in opposition to Appellant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant filed a supplemental brief in opposition to Erie Insurance's motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 14, 2022. On February 17, 2022, Erie Insurance filed a response to Appellant's amended answer, new matter, and counterclaim, and Appellant filed a reply to Erie Insurance's response on February 23, 2022. Finally, on February 24, 2022, Erie Insurance filed a supplemental brief in opposition to Appellant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. On March 7, 2022, the trial court entered declaratory judgment in the amount of $100,000.00 in favor of Appellant and against Erie Insurance. The $100,000.00 award reflected the trial court's determination that Erie Insurance was entitled to judgment on the pleadings and the trial court's further determination that Appellant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied. This appeal followed.¹

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

[1.] Whether [Appellant] is entitled to collect the $100,000[.00] UIM coverage limit [under] both of her Erie Insurance auto [insurance] policies, for a[n aggregate] total of $200,000[.00], because the "limit of protection" clause in her [insurance] policies is unenforceable because it impermissibly provides only "gap" coverage rather than the "excess" coverage required by the [Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"), 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1701 - 1799.7,] as interpreted by [our] Supreme Court in Generette v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. [, 598 Pa. 505, 957 A.2d 1180 (2008) ]?

[2.] Whether [Appellant] is entitled to collect the $100,000[.00] UIM coverage limit [under] both of her Erie Insurance auto [insurance] policies, for a[n aggregate] total of $200,000[.00], because she may "stack" the coverages because the stacking waivers she executed do not preclude inter-policy stacking under the circumstances of this case?

Appellant's Brief at 4 (extraneous capitalization omitted).

Appellant's issues challenge a trial court order that granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Erie Insurance and that denied Appellant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. Our standard and scope of review when considering an order that disposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is well-settled.

Entry of judgment on the pleadings is permitted under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034, which provides that "after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Pa.R.C[iv].P. 1034(a). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer. It may be entered when there are no disputed issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Appellate review of an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is plenary. The appellate court will apply the same standard employed by the trial court. A trial court must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. The court must accept as true all well[-]pleaded statements of fact, admissions, and any documents properly attached to the pleadings presented by the party against whom the motion is filed, considering only those facts which were specifically admitted.

We will affirm the grant of such a motion only when the moving party's right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.

Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Forest Res., LLC , 83 A.3d 177, 185 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied , 96 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2014).

Based on the nature of Appellant's issues, we will address them simul ut unum. Before beginning our review, however, we first examine the terms of Appellant's insurance policies.² Appellant's insurance policy number Q01 XXXX622 ("the 622 Policy") lists on its Declaration page coverage for two "vehicles," a 2008 Mazda CX-9 all-wheel-drive motor vehicle and a 2000 homemade ("HMDE") trailer. See The 622 Policy Declaration, at 1. The Declaration further shows Appellant had UIM coverage on the Mazda motor vehicle as follows: "Bodily Injury $100,000[.00] per person / $300,000[.00] per accident - Unstacked[.]" Id. at 2. Appellant did not have UIM coverage for the HMDE trailer. Id. The 622 Policy defines the term "auto" as:

Any land "motor vehicle" with at least four wheels except a:

1. vehicle designed for use principally off public roads;

2. vehicle operated on rails or crawler treads;

3. vehicle located for use as a residence;

4. "miscellaneous vehicle."

See The 622 Policy – General Policy Definitions, at 2. The term "motor vehicle" is defined as:

any vehicle that is self-propelled and is required to be registered under the laws of the state in which "you" [(referring to the insured, which in this case is Appellant)] reside at the time this policy is issued. "Motor vehicle" does not include a vehicle:

1. Propelled solely by human power;

2. Propelled by electric power obtained from overhead wires;

3. Operated on rails or crawler treads;

4. Located for use as a residence or premises; or

5. Which is a lawn and garden tractor or mower or similar vehicle.

Id. The term "miscellaneous vehicle" is defined as "a motorcycle (including a motorcycle with a sidecar), moped, snowmobile, golf cart, all[-]terrain vehicle[,] and any similar recreational vehicle. It does not include a lawn and garden tractor or mower or similar vehicle." Id. The term "trailer" is defined as "a vehicle designed...