SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
Erie Ins. Exch. v. Beutler
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 2095 EDA 2025
Decided: June 16, 2026
Terminology does not alter the nature of a transaction. Where there is no change in the amount of UIM coverage, because no new UIM coverage was purchased, no express stacking waiver is needed.
Background
Decedent and Mrs. Beutler owned four automobiles and a motorcycle. Erie Ins. Exch. (“Erie”) issued an insurance policy which covered the four automobiles. The motorcycle was insured by Progressive. In August 2018, Decedent executed a waiver of stacked coverage. In March 2024, Erie issued an amendment to the insurance policy in which Auto 3 was deleted and Auto 5 was added to the policy. In April 2024, Decedent was struck from behind by a motor vehicle, while he was riding his motorcycle on the highway, and, as a result of the accident, he died. Mrs. Beutler made a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under the Progressive policy. Progressive tendered the full UIM limit of $300,000 after which, Mrs. Beutler made a claim for stacked UIM benefits under the Erie policy.
Erie brought a declaratory judgment action under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1701-1799.7 (“MVFRL”) stating that they issued a policy to Decedent which provided $100,000 per person or $300,000 per accident in UIM, and that Decedent had executed a valid stacking waiver. Erie argued that the amendment in March 2024 did not constitute a purchase of new coverage and as such, there was no need for a new stacking waiver. Mrs. Beutler demanded that the court permit the pursuit of stacked UIM benefits in the amount of $400,000 because the stacking waiver referenced in the complaint was not applicable to the coverages in effect at the time of the accident due to the deletion and addition of vehicles from the policy. Mrs. Beutler further contended that when policy changes were made, Erie was required to offer an additional stacking waiver and its failure to do so rendered the stacking waiver as invalid.
The trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Erie establishing case law that the type of amendment that occurred in this case, did not require a new stacking waiver and therefore, Decedent’s executed stacking waiver was valid at the time of the accident and Mrs. Beutler was barred from recovering any additional UIM benefits beyond the $100,000 limit. Mrs. Beutler appealed.
Holding
The Superior Court agreed with the trial court, finding the removal of a vehicle from coverage under a multi-vehicle policy where there is no alteration to the pre-existing coverage or costs is not a purchase requiring a renewed express waiver per Subsection 1738(c). In short, when no new UIM coverage is purchased, no new stacking waiver is needed.
Questions about this case can be directed to Zoe Wilson at (717) 255-7231 or zwilson@tthlaw.com.
Kitner’s Lawn & Landscaping, LLC v. LRM Masonry, LLC
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 669 MDA 2025
Decided: March 24, 2026
Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms default judgment where there was no defect on the face of the record and where service appeared proper at the time of judgment.
Background
Kitner’s Lawn & Landscaping, LLC (“Kitner”) filed suit against LRM Masonry, LLC (“LRM”) alleging LRM failed to make various payments pursuant to their agreement for landscaping services. Kitner initiated suit by filing a writ of summons, which was served personally on Myers, the owner and authorized representative of LRM, by the sheriff’s office. Thereafter, Kitner mailed a certificate prerequisite to serve subpoenas, complaint, and notice of intent to file for default judgment to LRM at 2500 Eastern Boulevard. The docket did not reflect any returned mailings. After filing a praecipe for default judgment, the court entered a default judgment against LRM for failure to file an answer. Thereafter, the prothonotary docketed the notice of default judgment as a returned mailing. Kitner then filed and served a praecipe for writ of execution to pursue collection on the judgment against LRM.
Sixty-seven (67) days after the entry of default judgment, LRM filed a petition to open judgment, alleging it only learned of the judgment when the bank garnished its account pursuant to the writ of execution. In the petition, LRM alleged that Kitner directed all filings subsequent to the writ of summons to 2500 Eastern Boulevard, which was not LRM’s regular place of business, resulting in LRM’s failure to receive the filings. However, LRM acknowledged the 2500 Eastern Boulevard address was listed on its website but claimed it was solely for online marketing purposes. LRM alleged that Kitner was aware that LRM’s principal place of business was 2101 Elm Street, as that address appeared on the checks attached to the complaint. The trial court denied LRM’s petition to open default judgment entered in favor of Kitner, resulting in an appeal by LRM to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Holding
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court by denying LRM’s petition. First, it concluded that no fatal defect appeared on the face of the record because when the court entered default judgment, the record reflected the sheriff’s personal service of original process, Kitner’s mailings to that same address, and no returned mailings until after entry of default judgment. Second, the court held that service of filings was proper, as LRM’s website identified 2500 Eastern Boulevard as its address, the writ of summons personally served on Myers identified the same address, and no returned mailings were docketed until after the entry of default judgment. Lastly, the court found LRM’s excuse for its failure to respond unreasonable, as LRM had actual notice that litigation was pending but did not monitor the docket, notify anyone that the 2500 Eastern Boulevard address was incorrect, or take any affirmative steps to ensure subsequent legal papers would reach it.
Questions about this case can be directed to Kaylie O’Donnell at (717) 255-7643 or kodonnell@tthlaw.com.