Serving our clients' needs in the automobile field is one of the oldest practice areas at Marshall Dennehey. From the inception of our firm, we have serviced the insurance industry by both representing its insureds as well as the carriers directly in the first-party, PIP and third-party auto cases.
Our attorneys represent insurance carriers directly in UM/UIM, PIP, and other first-party automobile issues. In the UM/UIM arena, our unique regional presence allows the carrier to be represented by local counsel who are intimately familiar with the protocols and nuances of each county's local procedures and practices. For those who are familiar with the UM/UIM arena, this local presence and knowledge of affiliated members of the Bar can have a substantial impact on the final result of a claim. The Automobile Liability Practice Group works closely with members of the firm's Insurance Services and Special Investigation Practice Groups. Together, these groups provide practical solutions for all types of claims arising out of the use and operation of automobiles.
The attorneys in our Automobile Liability Practice are well experienced and established in third-party automobile liability cases, including the specific nuances with limited insurance policies, tort restriction statutes, and joint and several liability. They have litigated thousands of automobile liability third party cases, many of which have been taken to verdict.
We are aware of today's focus on securing sound legal services at reasonable fees. Our firm has grown because of our sensitivity in this area. Our trial lawyers take a practical, result-oriented approach to the cases with which they are entrusted. The firm retains competitive rates through task-appropriate delegation, which is consistent with the overall close supervision and client responsiveness required in automobile matters. We are also very willing to discuss, develop and implement alternative billing formats wherever possible.
Results
Delaware County Jury Awards Only $500 Each to Plaintiffs Seeking Over $500,000
Summary Judgment Obtained in a Vehicular Accident Case Involving Disputed Liability
We received summary judgment in a vehicular accident case involving disputed liability. Mr. Thurman was the third vehicle in a three-car collision in which the first vehicle admitted fault and was ticketed. Following the accident, the plaintiffs claimed they were in a fourth vehicle and alleged that Mr. Thurman caused the crash. When the claim was denied—and on the eve of the implementation of tort reform—the plaintiffs filed individual lawsuits against Mr. Thurman alone. We subpoenaed the repair shop that serviced Mr. Thurman’s vehicle and obtained records confirming that there was no front-end damage. When the plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery, we prepared motions for summary judgment in both cases. In response, only one plaintiff submitted an affidavit, while Mr. Thurman provided his own affidavit denying the allegations. We argued the motions, demonstrating that the evidence showed the plaintiffs were not involved in the collision and that Mr. Thurman bore no fault. The court ruled in our favor in both cases. Before the orders could be entered, however, the plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Before moving for summary judgment, we had served Proposals for Settlement on the plaintiffs and their counsel. After the dismissals, we filed a motion establishing entitlement to attorney’s fees, and the parties ultimately reached an agreement resolving all fees and costs in both cases.
Thought Leadership
Defense Digest
PA Superior Court Upholds Household Vehicle Exclusion in Favor of Erie When Stacking Was Not Implicated
June 30, 2026
Key Points: A household vehicle exclusion was upheld under an Erie Policy when the estate of deceased insureds sought UIM coverage when the insureds were occupying a motorcycle owned by the insureds, but the motorcycle was not covered by Erie’s Policy. The PA Superior Court distinguished Gallagher v. GEICO, in which Gallagher, unlike the Erie insured, had recovered UM/UIM, thus rendering the "household exclusion" an impermissible waiver of stacking. Here, with no UIM recovery from any source, the issue of stacking, much less impermissible waiver of stacking, never arose. In sum, the household vehicle exclusion is a valid exclusion when stacking is not implicated. In the Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Erie Ins. Exchange v. Estate of Kennedy, 350 A.3d 219 (Pa. Super. 2025), the court upheld Erie’s denial of coverage under the household vehicle exclusion in the Erie Policy when the insureds were occupying a motorcycle not covered under the policy. Dennis and Elissa Kennedy, Erie insureds, died in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident, with Dennis driving. Dennis insured the motorcycle with Progressive, which paid its liability limits to Elissa, after which Elissa sought household stacked Erie UIM coverage. Erie denied coverage under its "household exclusion" applicable to vehicles owned by insureds, but not covered by Erie's policy. The trial court granted judgment in favor of Erie on the ground that such benefits were barred by an exclusion applicable when an insured has suffered damages while occupying a vehicle owned by a relative and not covered under the policy, i.e. the household vehicle exclusion. Finding that the exclusion was valid, the PA Superior Court affirmed. The court found the facts of the case and policy exclusion analogous to the case of Erie Ins. Exchange v. Mione, 289 A.3d 524 (Pa. 2023). In Mione, a motorcyclist was injured in an accident with another vehicle whose driver was both at fault and underinsured. The motorcyclist's insurance policy did not include UM/UIM coverage. However, the motorcyclist had two household policies covering other vehicles, including stacked UM/UIM coverage, as well a household vehicle exclusion. UM/UIM benefits were therefore denied, and the motorcyclist argued that the exclusion was invalid because it did not comport with the statutory waiver requirements of Section 1738. The PA Supreme Court rejected the argument, explaining that UM/UIM coverage could not be procured in the "first instance" under the motorcyclist's household policies as “[F]or a household vehicle exclusion to be acting as an impermissible de facto waiver of stacking, the insured must have received UM/UIM coverage under some other policy first, or else is not implicated at all.” The motorcyclist had not received any UM/UIM benefits under his own motorcycle policy, so there was nothing for the UM/UIM benefits of the household policies to "stack on" to, and as such, Section 1738 was not implicated. The court also distinguished the case from Gallagher v. Geico, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2009), in which a motorcyclist was injured in an accident caused by another driver who was underinsured. The motorcyclist had purchased two policies, each of which provided stacked UM/UIM benefits. The first policy covered only the motorcycle; the second covered two automobiles, while also containing a "household exclusion," which precluded UM/UIM benefits. The PA Supreme Court held that the exclusion was invalid because the resulting waiver of UM/UIM coverage did not comport with the statutory requirements of Section 1738. The court distinguished the Kennedy’s case from Gallagher as the Kennedy’s were attempting to stack UM/UIM coverages from (a) the Progressive Motorcycle Policy under which Dennis Kennedy was the only insured, and (b) the Erie Policy under which Dennis Kennedy and Elissa J. Kennedy were the insureds. Crucially, the court found that the party from whom the right to stack UM/UIM benefits under the Erie policy was derived (Elissa J. Kennedy) was not an insured under the motorcycle policy. In other words, no one paid for Elissa J. Kennedy to receive UM/UIM benefits under the motorcycle policy, so that policy afforded her no contractual right to such coverage in the first instance. The court further reasoned that the "miscellaneous vehicle" exclusion in the Erie Policy was valid because the insured, Elissa J. Kennedy, had not first received UM/UIM coverage under Dennis Kennedy's Motorcycle Policy. In conclusion, the Court found Gallagher inapposite, and Mione compelled the affirmance of the trial court's ruling upholding Erie’s denial of coverage pursuant to the household vehicle exclusion. Christin is a Shareholder in our King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office. She can be reached at 610-354-8279 or clkochel@mdwcg.com.
Defense Digest
When Immunity Ends: What Galette v. NJ Transit Means for Liability Exposure
June 30, 2026
Key Points: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an arm of the state and cannot claim interstate sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs can now sue NJ Transit in the state where an accident occurs, expanding litigation venues. Forum selection risk increases, including plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. Expect higher defense costs and broader exposure in multi-state incidents. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, 607 U.S.(2026), marks a significant shift in how liability exposure is assessed for public transportation entities operating across state lines. In a unanimous ruling issued just last month, the Court held that NJ Transit does not qualify as an “arm of the state” for purposes of sovereign immunity. As a result, it can be sued in courts outside New Jersey. This ruling has substantial consequences, particularly for insurers, risk managers, and defense counsel handling casualty and liability claims. Sovereign immunity is a tool used to protect states and certain state entities from being sued without consent, especially in federal or out-of-state courts. Historically, organizations tied to state governments have used this doctrine to limit where they can be sued. Galette arose from separate accidents involving NJ Transit buses outside New Jersey state lines. One of the central cases involved Cedric Galette, who was injured in 2018, in Philadelphia, when a vehicle he occupied was struck by an NJ Transit bus. He filed suit in Pennsylvania. NJ Transit argued that, as an arm of the State of New Jersey, it could not be sued in another state’s courts. Lower courts rejected that position, and the issue ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that sovereign immunity protects the state itself, not every entity it creates. The key question the Court addressed in its opinion was whether the state structured the entity as legally separate from the state itself. In this case, the answer was yes. In simpler terms, the Court found that NJ Transit should not be treated the same as the State of New Jersey when it comes to lawsuits. This decision has broader implications for how liability risk is evaluated across a range of public and quasi-public entities. Several factors informed the Court’s decision. First, the Court found that NJ Transit is a separate corporate entity with the power to sue and be sued, enter contracts, and hold property. Second, the Court found that it is financially independent: its debts and liabilities are not obligations of the State of New Jersey. Third, although the state exercises oversight, the Court found that this oversight did not override NJ Transit’s legal separateness. Taken together, the Court reasoned, these characteristics placed NJ Transit squarely outside the scope of sovereign immunity. This decision carries immediate implications for casualty and insurance professionals. Most importantly, it expands litigation exposure; plaintiffs are no longer limited to suing NJ Transit in New Jersey. Instead, they may bring claims in the state where an accident occurs. This increases the likelihood of cases being filed in jurisdictions with more favorable laws, higher jury awards, or procedural advantages for plaintiffs, and creates uncertainty in claims handling. Insurers will now be required to account for variability in legal standards, jury behavior, and damages depending on where a case is filed. What might have been a predictable exposure in one jurisdiction can become far less certain in another. The decision in Galette will also lead to an increased risk of forum shopping. Plaintiffs may strategically choose venues they believe will offer better outcomes, particularly in high-value bodily injury cases, complicating defense strategy and affecting every aspect of a case from early evaluation to settlement posture. The Court’s reasoning is not limited to NJ Transit: it signals that other quasi-public entities, like regional transportation authorities or public utilities, may face similar challenges if they attempt to use sovereign immunity as a shield to lawsuits. Courts will look closely at how an entity is structured, including its financial independence and legal status, rather than relying on labels or general affiliations with a state. For insurers, this decision raises important underwriting and risk assessment questions. Entities previously viewed as benefiting from immunity protections may now present broader and more complex exposure. Policy terms, limits, and pricing may need to be revisited to respond to an increased risk landscape. The Galette opinion also holds cost implications for insurers and defense counsel. Defending cases in a variety of jurisdictions typically increases costs, as the need for local counsel and varied procedural rules are factors that now must be considered. In jurisdictions known for higher verdicts, indemnity exposure may rise as well. These factors are particularly relevant in matters involving bodily injury, mass transit incidents, and multi-party accidents. In response to Galette, insurers and defense teams should place greater emphasis on early case strategy. Determining where a case may be filed and whether venue can be challenged will be critical issues to tackle early on. Coverage for public or quasi-public entities should take into consideration the possibility of multi-state exposure, increased defense obligations, and the potential for higher verdicts depending on the jurisdiction. The broader significance of Galette lies in its message: courts are willing to scrutinize claims of sovereign immunity and will not extend protections automatically. Entities that operate with a degree of independence, even if those entities are publicly created, may be treated more like private actors for liability purposes. For insurance professionals, the takeaway is straightforward: assumptions about immunity-based defenses should be revisited. Organizations that were once considered relatively insulated by sovereign immunity can now face expanded exposure, more complex litigation, and higher costs. In an environment where jurisdiction can significantly influence outcomes, Galette underscores the importance of anticipating not just whether a claim will be filed, but where it will be litigated. Haleigh works in our Roseland, NJ office. He can be reached at (973) 618-4153 or HACatalano@MDWCG.com.
