On June 27, 2007, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, on the Court’s own initiative, issued an order inviting the Insurance Commissioner to submit an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief regarding whether the Court should reconsider the recent decision in Sackett v. Nationwide. That unusual development is a strong sign that the Court will reconsider the Court’s prior decision—an extremely rare procedural step.

Sackett v. Nationwide, decided on April 17, 2007, has had major repercussions in the motor vehicle insurance industry in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that insureds are entitled to stack the UM/UIM coverages on all vehicles, despite an otherwise valid rejection of stacking, if the first named insured did not sign a new rejection form upon the addition of vehicles that increases the number of vehicles under the policy. Insurers immediately began studying ways to deal with the Court’s ruling—ranging from payment of substantial additional benefits on recent claims, to mass mailings of updated selection forms, to withdrawal from motor vehicle insurance business in the state.

On April 30, 2007, Nationwide applied for reargument, basically on the grounds that the Court was mistaken or uninformed as to the enormous impact of the decision. Reargument of a Supreme Court decision is rarely granted—reportedly, it has been allowed only a handful of times throughout the Court’s 285 year history. PDI, the Insurance Federation and PaTLA have asked the Court for permission to file briefs. The recent order inviting the insurance Commissioner to file a brief is, at the least, an indication that the Court is giving serious consideration to reconsideration—at best it is an indication that the Court will give the issue a fresh look, in light of better information, as to its impact.

Any questions regarding this case can be directed to Peter Speaker at 717-237-7644 (pspeaker@tthlaw.com).