Thought Leadership

Alexander Wetzel tragically died as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving an underinsured motorist. Wetzel qualified as an insured under a policy of auto insurance issued to his mother by GEICO which provided coverage for underinsured motorist (UIM) claims with a limit of liability of $100,000 per person. Wetzel’s parents asserted a claim for UIM benefits under the GEICO policy on behalf of the estate of their son for a survival action. They also asserted a claim for UIM benefits under the GEICO policy on behalf of themselves for a wrongful death action. The parents argued that the limit of liability for the UIM claim should be applied to each claim independently—the survival action and the wrongful death action—thus, GEICO’s total liability would be a combined $200,000. GEICO argued that the language of the policy mandated that there was only one UIM claim and, thus, its liability was limited to $100,000.

The Eastern District Court reviewed the language of the policy, which stated that GEICO would “pay damages for bodily injury caused by an accident which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that motor vehicle. The bodily injury must be sustained by the insured.” The court also noted that the policy’s limit of liability language stated that the most GEICO “will pay for all damages including those for care or loss of services due to bodily injury to one person in any one accident is the limit shown in the Declarations for ‘each person’ applicable to the vehicle that the insured was occupying at the time of the accident.” (Emphasis added.)

The court, while acknowledging that the parents’ argument that their claim under the wrongful death act is distinct from that of their son’s estate’s claim, noted that the parents did not suffer a bodily injury. Instead, the court noted that the nexus of both claims was the death of Wetzel and that both survival and wrongful death claims “originate from the same wrongful act.” 

The parents argued that the language of the policy was ambiguous—an argument that the court refuted. Instead, the court found that the express language of the policy “leaves no room for confusion.” Only one insured was injured—Wetzel—and, thus, the most GEICO will pay for injury to any one person is $100,000. The court stated that, while Wetzel’s tragic death gave rose to two statutorily created causes of action, it does not change the language of the policy, which was unambiguous.

Finally, the court refuted the parents’ argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court holdings in Gallagher and Donovan—regarding issues of stacking of UIM benefits—had any salience to the issue before it. Noting that only one UIM policy was available, the court stated, “It is difficult to discern how these decisions are relevant.”

On June 6, 2025, the parents filed a Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}