Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Elizabeth M. Caserta v. Geico General Insurance

September 29, 2011

ELIZABETH M. CASERTA
v.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY



The opinion of the court was delivered by: McLaughlin, J.

MEMORANDUM

This case arises from a hit-and-run accident involving the plaintiff and her boyfriend, Edward Carcarey. The plaintiff filed this suit against GEICO for breach of contract and bad faith following the defendant's denial of her claim under a GEICO insurance policy held by Suzanne Carcarey, Edward Carcarey's mother.

The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) arguing that the plaintiff is not covered by Suzanne Carcarey's insurance policy. The Court will grant this motion.

I. Facts as Alleged in the Complaint On the night of September 21, 2007, the plaintiff and

her boyfriend Edward Carcarey were walking along the shoulder of Route 422 in Lower Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania when an unidentified car struck them both. The impact propelled Carcarey into the air. He was thrown into a gully where he died as a result of his injuries. The plaintiff suffered minor physical injuries, for which she was treated at a local hospital that night, as well as emotional distress. The unidentified motorist fled the scene. Compl. ¶¶ 10-14.

At the time of the accident, Suzanne Carcarey held an insurance policy issued by the defendant that covered four vehicles and provided uninsured motorist coverage for each vehicle. Edward Carcarey was insured under his mother's policy.*fn1 Id. ¶¶ 19-24. The plaintiff provided notice to the defendant of her claim under Suzanne Carcarey's policy and the defendant has refused to pay. Id. ¶¶ 28-29.

II. Analysis*fn2

The defendant filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the plaintiff is not covered by Suzanne Carcarey's insurance policy.

The relevant portion of the policy is Amended Section IV, Uninsured Motorists Coverage. For the purpose of this section, the policy defines "insured" as follows:

2. "Insured" means:

a) you;

b) a household member;

c) any other person while occupying an owned auto;

d) any person who is entitled to recover damages because of bodily injury sustained by an insured ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.