Summary judgment on stacking issue denied where the policy number for the policy in effect at the time of the accident was different than the policy number for the policy in effect at inception.

The defendants sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for stacked underinsured motorist “UIM” benefits, dismissal of the plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim, and dismissal of all claims against Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Progressive Northern Insurance Company on the grounds that neither was in privity with the plaintiff. On the date of the subject accident, the plaintiff was covered by an automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive Northern Insurance Company. The plaintiff’s parents had rejected stacked UIM coverage at the inception of that policy. The plaintiff argued that the rejection was not dispositive because other policies written by Progressive, which did not contain stacking rejections, may have covered him at the time of the accident. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants refused to provide certified copies of relevant insurance documents and that their refusal to conduct a reasonable investigation of the claim demonstrated statutory bad faith. The court held that the record was devoid of evidence establishing a contract of insurance between the plaintiff and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company at the time of the accident and, therefore, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company was not a properly named defendant. The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the stacking issue since the court could not conclude that stacking was unavailable to the plaintiff. The policy number of the policy in effect at the time of the accident did not match the policy number for the policy in effect at the time the stacking waivers were signed. The court also held that the bad faith claim should be left for the jury.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal 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 © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}