Suit with third party driver properly consolidated with UIM claim where the claims had common issues of law and fact; however, forum selection clause required that UIM claim be filed in court where insured resided at time of accident.

The plaintiff sued the third party driver, as well as their underinsured motorist carrier, following a motor vehicle accident. The underinsured motorist carrier filed preliminary objections to the jointly filed claim, arguing that they had been improperly joined with the third party. The trial court overruled the insurer's preliminary objections. The court found that a majority of courts favor consolidation of cases and that the two claims had common questions of law and fact. However, the court sustained the insurer's preliminary objection as to venue based upon a forum selection clause in the policy, which required the UIM claim to be filed in the county in which the insured resided at the time of the accident. At the time of accident, the insureds resided in Clinton County. The trial court, therefore, severed the two claims based upon the forum selection clause. The significance of this case is two-fold: (1) third party tortfeasor lawsuits and UIM lawsuits arising out of the same motor vehicle accident can generally be consolidated since they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and involve common questions of law and fact; and (2) forum selection clauses are generally upheld and enforceable, absent ambiguity. Any ambiguities will be resolved in favor of the insured.

Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013