Pennsylvania UIM Stacking Waivers After an Increase in Coverage
Pennsylvania UIM Stacking Waivers After an Increase in Coverage
Under Pennsylvania law, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage can involve “stacking,” which generally allows the limits available for multiple insured vehicles to be combined when stacking applies. Pennsylvania law also permits an insured to waive stacking by signing the statutory waiver.
What Did Barnard v. Travelers Decide?
In Barnard v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in 2019 that when an insured increases UIM coverage limits for multiple vehicles on an existing policy, that increase constitutes a new “purchase” of UIM coverage for purposes of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1738(c). Under those circumstances, the insurer must offer the insured the opportunity to waive stacking of the new aggregate amount of coverage.
The decision answered a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It is important to distinguish the final Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision from the earlier federal district-court ruling that preceded it.
What Is Stacking?
Stacking can increase the amount of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage available by combining applicable limits for more than one insured vehicle. The precise amount and availability of stacked benefits depend on the policy, number of vehicles, waivers, household circumstances and Pennsylvania law.
What Happened in the Barnard Case?
Michelle Barnard insured two vehicles and initially purchased $50,000 in UIM coverage per vehicle. She signed a waiver of stacking. She later increased the UIM limits on each vehicle to $100,000 but did not execute a new stacking waiver at that time. After she was injured by an underinsured motorist, a dispute arose over whether the earlier waiver remained effective for the increased limits.
Why Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Require a New Waiver?
The Court concluded that paying for increased UIM limits constituted a purchase of additional UIM coverage. Because the aggregate amount that could be stacked had increased, the insurer was required to offer the insured an opportunity to waive stacking of that new amount.
Does Every Policy Change Require a New Stacking Waiver?
No. Barnard addressed an increase in UIM coverage limits for multiple vehicles. The Court distinguished that situation from changes that merely increase premiums without increasing the amount of UIM coverage, such as some inflationary premium changes or replacing an insured vehicle while maintaining the same coverage limits.
What Did Franks v. State Farm Clarify?
In Franks v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 292 A.3d 866 (Pa. 2023), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified that not every change to a multi-vehicle policy is a new “purchase” under Section 1738(c). Removing a vehicle under circumstances that do not alter the pre-existing UM/UIM coverage or cost for the remaining vehicles does not, by itself, require a new stacking waiver. Read together, Barnard and Franks focus the inquiry on whether the insured actually acquired additional UM/UIM coverage, rather than whether the policy merely changed in some respect.
Vehicle additions, substitutions, removals and changes in coverage limits therefore should be evaluated based on the actual policy transaction and current Pennsylvania law rather than a blanket rule that every policy amendment requires a new waiver.
2026 Pennsylvania Update
In Erie Insurance Exchange v. Beutler, No. 2095 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. June 16, 2026), a non-precedential memorandum decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court applied Barnard and Franks and affirmed that deleting one vehicle and adding a replacement vehicle, while keeping the same number of insured vehicles and the same amount of UIM coverage, did not constitute a new “purchase” under Section 1738(c). Although Beutler is not precedential authority, its reasoning illustrates the continuing focus on whether the insured actually acquired additional UM/UIM coverage—not merely whether the policy was amended or the insurer used particular transaction terminology.
What Should Pennsylvania Drivers Review?
- Current uninsured and underinsured motorist limits;
- Whether stacking has been accepted or waived;
- How many vehicles are insured under the policy;
- Any changes made to UIM or UM limits;
- Copies of stacking waivers and other coverage-selection forms; and
- Policies covering other vehicles or household members that may affect a claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an old stacking waiver always remain effective after coverage is increased?
No. Under Barnard, an increase in UIM limits for multiple vehicles can require the insurer to offer a new stacking waiver for the increased aggregate coverage.
Does Barnard mean stacked coverage is automatically available in every case?
No. The effect of a waiver and the amount of available coverage depend on the policy documents, vehicles, limits, household facts and other applicable law.
Should I keep copies of my coverage-selection forms?
Yes. Stacking waivers and other signed coverage forms can become important if a coverage dispute arises after an accident.
Learn More About Pennsylvania Auto Insurance Claims
Read ZwickLaw’s guide to full tort versus limited tort in Pennsylvania, review what to do after a Pennsylvania car accident, and review the firm’s personal injury practice, or learn more about Matthew R. Zwick.
Contact ZwickLaw
For questions concerning a Pennsylvania automobile-insurance or injury claim, call (814) 371-6400, email mrz@zwick-law.com, or use the ZwickLaw contact page.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Insurance coverage disputes depend on the policy language, signed forms, facts and current Pennsylvania law.
