No. 969 Pittsburgh, 1982, Appeal from Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, No. GD81-26006.
Ronald L. Muha, Pittsburgh, for appellants.
Warren D. Ferry, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Rowley, Wieand and Hester, JJ.
[ 330 Pa. Super. Page 15]
Where a policy of automobile insurance provides unequivocally that underinsured motorist coverages on several vehicles shall not be accumulated or stacked to increase the insurer's maximum liability for any one accident, may the provisions of the policy be ignored because of "reasonable expectations" of the insured or because the limitation in the contract of insurance is violative of public policy? The trial court found that the policy provision was effective to limit the insurer's liability. We affirm.
Richard Votedian and his wife, Nancy, were the owners of two automobiles, both of which were covered by a policy of automobile insurance issued by General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation. For an additional premium of five ($5.00) dollars for each vehicle, the insurance company agreed to provide protection against uninsured and/or underinsured motorists,*fn1 with a liability limit of $30,000.00. The policy provided, with respect to this coverage, as follows:
"The limit of liability shown in the Schedule for this coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages resulting from any one accident. This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of:
[ 330 Pa. Super. Page 162]
3. Vehicles or premiums shown in the ...