Superior Court Enforces Forum Selection Clause, Dismissing UTPCPL Claim and Transferring Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Claims Against Carrier to Insured’s Home County

The plaintiff, Robert Mark Winner, was rear-ended by another driver and suffered alleged injuries. Winner brought a claim against the other driver and also notified his own auto insurer, Progressive, that he was making a UIM claim. Winner sued Progressive and Progressive’s claim professionals, asserting causes of action for statutory insurance bad faith, violation of Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and breach of contract as to Progressive only.

Progressive and its claim professionals filed preliminary objections to the complaint. Among its preliminary objections, Progressive averred improper venue as a result of a forum selection clause in the insurance policy mandating that lawsuits against it must be brought in the forum in which the insured lives.

The trial court granted Progressive’s preliminary objection and dismissed the UTPCPL count against it and, further, transferred the remainder of the case to the county in which Winner lived. Winner appealed this order to the Superior Court.

The Superior Court affirmed the transfer of the matter to the county in which Winner lives. The court found that the forum selection clause in the policy was unambiguous. The court held that the language of the clause, which stated “[a]ny action brought against us pursuant to the coverage under Part III – Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage must be brought in the county in which the person seeking benefit resides...,” encompassed not only the breach of contract action, but also the tort actions he asserted against Progressive (the bad faith and UTPCPL claims) because all of the claims hinged on the fact that Winner asserted he should be covered under this policy. The court stated that “[g]iven the direct relationship between Winner’s UIM claim and tort claims, he should litigate his tort claims in the same forum and some proceeding as his UIM claim.”

Plaintiffs routinely argue that forum selection clauses in UIM policies cannot be enforced when they assert bad faith claims along with their breach of contract claims. This case should be considered when arguing for a transfer of venue on the basis of a forum selection clause.
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}