Under choice of law analysis, federal court precludes a plaintiff from submitting evidence of medical bills and wage loss in a UIM trial.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled that the plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident injured in a car accident in North Carolina, may not submit his medical bills and wage loss evidence in a UIM claim he filed against his insurer. In a choice of law analysis, Hon. Lawrence Stengel ruled that Pennsylvania, not North Carolina substantive law, applied for the purposes of determining the plaintiff's damages, where he had already received first-party benefits under his Pennsylvania insurance policy, including $65,316 in medical benefits and $75,150 in lost wages. The court's holding hinged upon its determination that Pennsylvania's interests under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) outweighed those of North Carolina, under the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act (MVSFRA). The plaintiff contended that, under the MVSFRA, he could submit evidence of medical bills and full lost wages, regardless of whether he had already been compensated for some or all of these losses, which, the court noted, would be tantamount to a double recovery. The court reasoned that "[t]he most significant contacts presented in this action reveal that Pennsylvania substantive tort law must be applied..." and that "[T]his insurance contract was formed in Pennsylvania, under the [MVFRL], a law the clearly emphasized cost-containment." Under § 1722 of the MVFRL, any plaintiff who is eligible to receive other benefits, including first-party benefits, is precluded from recovering the amount of benefits previously paid.

Case Law Alert, 3rd Quarter 2013