By: John Livingood, October 23, 2024
In Baclit v. Sloan, 2024 PA Super 182, United Financial Casualty Company (“United”) appealed an order granting summary judgment in favor of W. Scott Baclit, Administrator of the Estate of Timothy S. Baclit. The issue was whether Timothy Baclit was entitled to stacked underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under a commercial automobile insurance policy issued to TKC Trucking, which Baclit owned and operated.
Timothy Baclit was killed when he exited the vehicle he had been operating, which was owned and insured by his mother, to aid another driver in an auto accident. While rendering aid, Baclit fell from a bridge and sustained fatal injuries.
Baclit’s estate sought UIM coverage from various insurers, including United, which had issued a commercial policy to Baclit’s company, TKC Trucking. The commercial policy insured a single vehicle owned by the company and provided stacked UIM coverage. The policy named Baclit as a rated driver, but not a named insured.
United denied the estate’s claim, finding that Baclit did not meet the definition of “insured” under the policy, and because he was driving a non-policy vehicle (his mother’s vehicle), he was not entitled to UIM benefits or stacking under the commercial policy.
The trial court found in favor of the estate, concluding that Baclit was entitled to UIM coverage because he was the sole officer of TKC Trucking and was a named rated driver on the policy. The court also found that United’s attempt to deny coverage constituted a “de facto waiver” of stacking benefits, which violated provisions of the MVFRL.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s order, relying heavily on Miller v. Royal Ins. Co., 510 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Super. 1986), aff’d, 535 A.2d 1049 (Pa. 1988), which recognized that owners and officers are class one insureds under a policy issued in the name of a corporation. The Court found that Baclit, as the sole officer of TKC Trucking and a rated driver, was entitled to stacked UIM benefits.
The Baclit case conflicts with previous Pennsylvania Superior Court cases, Hunyady v. Aetna, 578 A.2d 1312 (Pa. Super. 1990) and Northern Ins. Co. v. Resinski, 827 A.2d 1240 (Pa. Super. 2003). Both cases excluded spouses from UIM coverage under similar circumstances that involved the definition of an “insured” under a commercial auto policy where the husband was not identified as a named insured under the policy.
The conflicting rulings in Baclit and earlier cases, Hunyady and Resinski, suggest that Pennsylvania courts will need to clarify the criteria for UIM coverage under commercial auto policies. As more cases challenge the definition of an “insured,” future decisions may shape how broadly or narrowly coverage applies, especially for non-named individuals closely tied to the business entity.
