Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) was involved as an interested party in a trio of recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions involving underinsured motorist coverage (UIM). Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance Company involved the issue of the right of a UIM claimant to plead, prove and recover as damages in a UIM action items of income loss already paid by the claimant's disability insurer. A UIM arbitration panel held that Tannenbaum was barred from recovering these items under Section 1722 of Pennsylvania's motor vehicle law. The trial court reversed, and Pennsylvania's Superior Court affirmed the trial court. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court in an April 28, 2010 decision first held that Tannenbaum's disability policy plan was subject to Section 1722's coverage. The court then went on to hold that Section 1722 precludes a claimant from recovering in a UIM claim benefits already paid under a disability policy. Justice Saylor wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Castille and Justice Eakin.

In O'Hara v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, the claimant had sought to recover UIM benefits in an action in Philadelphia County. At the time of the 2007 accident, O'Hara was a resident of Delaware County. Pennsylvania's Superior Court upheld a "forum selection" clause in the Liberty Mutual auto policy requiring O'Hara to pursue UIM benefits in Delaware County. The court founmd that the clause was enforceable and did not violate the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure governing venue. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court on May 3, 2010 denied O'Hara's appeal of the Superior Court decision, leaving their holding intact.

Similiarly, in a March 23, 2010 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Pusl v. Means left intact another Superior Court decision. Amanda Pusl was injured in an auto accident and brought suit against Means. Prior to trial, Pusl settled her UIM claim with State Farm Insurance for $75,000. Her case against Means proceeded to trial resulting in a $100,000 verdict for her. After trial, the court "molded" the verdict to set off the $75,000 UIM settlement, reducing the award to Pusl to $25,000. Pennsylvania's Superior Court upheld the award of $25,000 finding that the reduction of the award did not violate Pennsylvania's "collateral source rule." The court found that public policy frowns on any "double recoveray" of damages, and that Section 1722 of Pennsylvania's motor vehicle law was enacted to prevent such a result and ensure that an injured person is entitled to only "one satisfaction."