Estate of Craley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-52-2005] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT RANDALL P. CRALEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAYNEANN M. CRALEY, RANDALL P. CRALEY, PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF KEITH P. CRALEY, A MINOR, AND RANDALL P. CRALEY, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND GLORIA M. CRALEY AND LAWRENCE W. CRALEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Appellants v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 162 MAP 2004 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered February 9, 2004, at No. 1117 MDA 2000, which reversed and remanded the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County entered December 22, 1998, at No. 97-9019. 844 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 2004) ARGUED: May 16, 2005 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: April 21, 2006 I join Chief Justice Cappy s interpretation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1738, as I believe subsection (b) provides a named insured the option of waiving both inter- and intra-policy stacking of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, and that option is not undone by subsections (c) and (d), even though the language of those subsections seems to speak to the intra-policy situation alone. I write separately to address the household vehicle exclusion in Randall s policy, see Majority Slip Op., at 6, which State Farm argues is valid and enforceable. While the majority does not reach a discussion of this clause, I believe the clause also precludes the Craleys recovery of uninsured motorist benefits under Randall s policy. This clause is similar to household vehicle exclusion clauses this Court previously has held enforceable. See Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Colbert, 813 A.2d 747, 755 (Pa. 2002) (household exclusion consistent with public policy of MVFRL); Eichelman v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 711 A.2d 1006, 1010 (Pa. 1998) (household exclusion enforceable as it furthers legislative policy behind underinsured motorist coverage in MVFRL and furthers MVFRL s intent of stopping spiralling costs of automobile insurance). There is no reason, public policy or otherwise, to not enforce this exclusion. For the reasons offered above, I concur. [J-52-2005] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.