Daniel Lee v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-1707
___________
DANIEL LEE,
Appellant,
v.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee.
________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 06-cv-3346)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 10, 2008
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: April 29, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in
an insurance case, brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a).
This case concerns the amount of money owed to the plaintiff, Daniel Lee, under
an insurance policy issued to his mother, Myung Lee, by Progressive Casualty Insurance
Company (“Progressive”). Myung Lee purchased car insurance and signed a writing,
pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S. § 1734, that she was purchasing uninsured motorist and
underinsured motorist coverages for an amount less than the limits of liability for bodily
injury. Subsequently, Daniel Lee, the insured’s son, got into an accident in Myung Lee’s
car and suffered several injuries. The parties dispute whether Lee is entitled to receive
$15,000, the amount already paid by Progressive and indicated in the policy as the
underinsured motorist coverage, or $100,000, the amount of bodily injury coverage in the
policy. Appellant argues that because the policy did not indicate the amount of the
underinsured motorist coverage on the same page as the § 1734 writing, the writing is
invalid. There is nothing in the statute that requires the writing to include the amount of
the coverage on the same page as the signature.
Accordingly, and substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s
February 21, 2007 decision, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --