Blood v. Old Guard Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the insureds’ decision to change liability coverage did not trigger any additional duties under the MVFRL when the insurer issued the policy with UIM coverage after receiving an executed request for reduced UIM coverage limits
• indicating that the insurer’s obligation to issue UIM benefits under section 1734 is triggered by the insured’s written request, or lack thereof
• holding that an insurer was not required to obtain a new “sign-down;” the change in liability limits did not affect an otherwise valid section 1734 selection and the reduction of liability limits and did not constitute a delivery or issuance of a policy
• addressing the Smith holding and concluding that “initial rejection of all UM/UIM coverage survived the subsequent increase in liability coverage in the absence of an affirmative change made by the insured.”
• “This Court is without authority to write new requirements into the MVFRL where the statutory language is without ambiguity.”
• “As a general proposition, we agree with the characterization of Sections 1731 and 1734 offered by the Third Circuit in Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Resseguie, 980 F.2d 226, 230 (3d Cir.1992).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).