United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
the Court are the following:
1. Plaintiffs' Complaint, attached as Exhibit A to
Defendants' Notice of Removal to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Doc.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 4);
3. Defendant's Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. 5);
4. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and accompanying Memorandum
of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint
(Doc. 6); and
5. Defendant's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. 11).
consideration of the Parties' submissions, and for the
reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
April 28, 2015, Plaintiff Naomie Elizaire (“Mrs.
Elizaire”) was injured in a car accident. Compl. ¶
11, Doc. 1. Mrs. Elizaire's injuries and losses from the
accident exceeded the $15, 000 bodily injury liability limit
payment that Mrs. Elizaire received from the insurer of the
person responsible for the accident. Compl. ¶¶ 12,
13, Doc. 1. For this reason, Mrs. Elizaire and her husband
Francknel Elizaire sought additional compensation from their
own insurance company, Defendant The Automobile Insurance
Company of Hartford, Connecticut (“Travelers”),
under their car insurance policy bearing number
0M2666-993650294-203-1 (“Policy”). Compl.
¶¶ 5, 24, Doc. 1.
requested that Travelers pay $300, 000 to Plaintiffs. This
$300, 000 constituted the full “stacked underinsured
motorist coverage” limit under the Policy. Compl.
¶ 24, Doc. 1. Travelers refused payment and explained
that Plaintiffs did not qualify for stacked underinsured
motorist coverage because Plaintiffs rejected such coverage
by executing a “Rejection of Underinsured Motorist
Coverage” form (“Travelers Rejection Form”)
at the time they purchased the Policy. Compl. ¶ 26, Doc.
1. The Travelers Rejection Form appeared on a page separate
from the rest of the Policy. The Travelers Rejection Form
Pennsylvania Rejection of Underinsured Motorists
For: FRANCKNEL & NAOIMIE ELIZAIRE State/Zip: PA
Underinsured motorists protection is insurance coverage you
may purchase that protects only you and your family if you or
they are injured by a negligent driver who does not have
enough bodily injury liability insurance to cover your
claims. This coverage is optional. However, we are required
to include it in your policy unless you take steps to reject
If you do not want this coverage, the insured named first on
the application or the declarations page must sign and date
the rejection of underinsured motorists protection below. If
you want to keep this coverage, do not sign this waiver and
go to the next page.
Rejection of Underinsured Motorists
By signing this waiver I am rejecting underinsured motorists
coverage under this policy, for myself and all relatives
residing in my household. Underinsured coverage protects me
and relatives living in my househould for losses and damages
suffered if injury is caused by the negligence of a driver
who does not have enough insurance to pay for all losses and
damages. I knowingly and voluntarily reject this coverage.
Signature of First Named Insured Date
Br. in Supp. of its Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2, Doc. 5. Indeed,
Plaintiffs admit that on February 23, 2015, Francknel
Elizaire signed and dated the Travelers Rejection Form.
Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 8, Doc.
Despite demand, Travelers, citing the signed and dated
Travelers Rejection Form, ultimately refused to pay
Plaintiffs. Compl. ¶ 26, Doc. 1.
accordingly filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas for
Philadelphia County seeking a judgment declaring Plaintiffs
entitled to stacked underinsured motorist coverage equaling
$300, 000. See generally Compl., Doc. 1. In apparent
recognition that the Plaintiffs' execution of the
Travelers Rejection Form would normally bar Plaintiffs'
requested relief, Plaintiffs allege that the language of the
Travelers Rejection Form violates Pennsylvania law and is,
therefore, invalid and unenforceable. Compl. ¶ 22, Doc.
1. Plaintiffs allege that the Travelers Rejection Form is
invalid and unenforceable because it fails to comply
specifically with the statutorily prescribed language for
such rejection forms under 75 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann.
§ 1731(c) (West 2017).
Travelers removed the action to this Court in a timely manner
on the basis of diversity. Travelers then filed the present
Motion to Dismiss. Travelers ultimately contends that the
Travelers Rejection Form is valid and enforceable against
Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs wholly rejected underinsured
motorist protection under the Policy, and, therefore,