Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">In <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Matthews-v-Erie-Insurance-Group.pdf">Matthews v. Erie Insurance Group</a>, </em>the plaintiff’s action arose following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff appealed from the trial court order sustaining Erie Insurance Group (“Erie”)’s preliminary objections to venue and transferring the case from Philadelphia County to Bucks County. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Appellant, Matthews, was operating a motor vehicle insured by Erie, under a policy issued to Ion Construction. Appellant was a named insured under the policy. Appellant asserted Ion Construction never rejected underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”) and therefore the policy should include such coverage. The court recognized the remedy would be reformation of the contract to provide UIM coverage. But, as Erie stated in preliminary objections, Erie’s standard UIM benefits contain a clause establishing venue in any legal action involving UIM coverage to be the county where the plaintiff is domiciled. Appellant argued the trial court was incorrect in enforcing a forum selection clause to transfer venue that was not contained in the original insurance contract.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Court balanced multiple factors in determining whether reformation of a contract to provide coverage must also include the forum selection provision which would have attached to such coverage in the absence of a waiver. The Court referenced 75 Pa.C.S. § 1731(c.1) which dictates reformation of a contract in the case of an invalid waiver, and also took into account a related declaratory action which is also being litigated in Bucks County. Lastly, the Appellant raised issues on appeal – including the prematurity of the court’s decision to transfer venue before it had been determined UIM coverage was appropriate – that were not argued before the trial court. Therefore, the Superior Court declined to hear such arguments. Yet, the Court noted that even if such arguments were not waived, transferring the matter is valid and in the interest of judicial economy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This case displays the Court’s concern about inconsistent ruling, given a declaratory action regarding the same legal issues are being litigated in Bucks County. Judicial economy was held the most weighted factor, and thus the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s order of transferring <em>Matthews v. Erie Insurance Group </em>from Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia to Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to Madeline Troutman for her contribution to this post.  Please email <a href="mailto:gcoats@wcmlaw.com">Georgia Coats</a> with any questions.</p>
&nbsp;

&nbsp;