People tend to use “uninsured” and “underinsured” interchangeably, but Pennsylvania law treats them as two different problems with two different fixes. Get the distinction wrong, or miss a procedural step tied to it, and you can end up with less money than your policy actually owes you, sometimes none at all, even when you did nothing wrong.
Two Different Problems, Same Source of Recovery
Uninsured motorist (UM) coverage applies when the at-fault driver has no liability insurance at all. No policy exists to pay any part of your claim.
Underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage applies when the at-fault driver does have insurance, but their limits are too low to cover what you actually lost. Pennsylvania’s minimum liability coverage is only $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident, a number that gets exhausted fast in any accident involving surgery, a hospital stay, or missed work. A driver can be fully insured and still leave you underinsured.
Both coverages live on your own auto policy, not the at-fault driver’s, and under 75 Pa. C.S. Section 1731, insurers are required to offer both on every policy issued in the state. You can reject them, but only with a specific written waiver. If your insurer can’t produce a valid signed rejection form when a claim is disputed, the law defaults your UIM coverage to match your own bodily injury liability limits under Section 1731(c.1). That single rule has rescued more than one claim that an insurer initially tried to deny.
The Step Most People Get Wrong: Exhaustion
You generally can’t go straight to your own UIM coverage. Section 1733 of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law requires the at-fault driver’s liability coverage to be pursued and exhausted first. Only after that policy pays out, and it’s not enough, does your UIM coverage become available to cover the difference.
This creates a trap that catches people who are trying to resolve their claim quickly. If you accept a settlement from the at-fault driver’s insurer without first notifying your own UIM carrier and getting permission, you can jeopardize your right to pursue UIM benefits afterward. Pennsylvania courts have held that a UIM insurer can substitute its own payment for the tortfeasor’s settlement offer, but only if it was given the chance to weigh in before you signed anything. Settling too fast, before your own insurer is looped in, is one of the most common and most avoidable ways an otherwise valid UIM claim gets weakened.
Stacking: Where the Real Money Often Is
Most drivers have no idea how much UM/UIM coverage they actually carry, because the number on the declarations page isn’t always the number that applies. Under 75 Pa. C.S. Section 1738, Pennsylvania allows stacking in two forms:
- Intra-policy stacking, where UM/UIM limits multiply by the number of vehicles insured on a single policy
- Inter-policy stacking, where limits combine across multiple auto policies in the same household
A driver who assumes they have $50,000 in coverage because that’s what one line item says may actually have $150,000 or more once every insured vehicle and every household policy is accounted for. Insurers are not in the business of volunteering this. Reviewing every policy in the household, not just the one on the car involved in the crash, is often the single highest-leverage step in a UIM claim.
Exclusions Insurers Rely On
Even where coverage clearly exists, insurers look for policy language to narrow it. One that has been heavily litigated in Pennsylvania is the “regular use” exclusion, which can bar UIM coverage for injuries sustained in a vehicle you regularly drive but don’t personally own, such as a work vehicle. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld these exclusions as enforceable, which means the specific facts of how, and how often, you used a given vehicle can determine whether coverage applies at all. This is exactly the kind of clause that reads as boilerplate until it’s the reason a claim gets denied.
When the Insurer Just Says No
Because UM/UIM claims are filed against your own insurer rather than a stranger’s, it’s easy to assume the process will be cooperative. It frequently isn’t. Insurers dispute the value of these claims, delay them, and sometimes deny them outright on technical grounds. Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute, 42 Pa. C.S. Section 8371, gives policyholders a separate legal remedy when an insurer’s conduct crosses from tough negotiating into bad faith, including potential damages beyond what the original claim was worth. Most UM/UIM disputes also proceed to contractual arbitration rather than a courtroom trial, a process with its own rules that rewards preparation.
When Your Coverage Should Pay But Doesn’t
When the at-fault driver’s insurance isn’t enough, knowing your options makes all the difference. The attorneys at Ogg, Murphy & Perkosky, P.C. have been helping Pittsburgh families navigate uninsured and underinsured motorist claims since 1981 and have recovered over $250 million for injured clients across Allegheny County. Contact us today for a free case evaluation. There is no cost to speak with us. Results may vary.
Call us at (412) 231-9973 or schedule your free case evaluation today.
FAQs
Do I have to sue the at-fault driver before I can use my UIM coverage? You have to pursue and exhaust their liability coverage first, which usually means settling or resolving that claim, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a lawsuit. The order matters more than the method.
Can filing a UM or UIM claim raise my insurance rates? Under Pennsylvania law, filing a UM or UIM claim for an accident that wasn’t your fault should not be treated as a rate-increasing event the way an at-fault claim would be.
What if I only have the state minimum coverage myself? Your UM/UIM limits are generally tied to whatever you purchased, not the state minimum, unless your insurer failed to produce a valid rejection form, in which case coverage defaults to match your liability limits. It’s worth having your specific policy checked.
The insurer says my claim is worth less than my medical bills. Now what? That’s a negotiation position, not a final number. Between stacking, exhaustion sequencing, and the possibility of a bad faith claim if the denial is unreasonable, there are usually more angles available than the first offer suggests.