The Third Circuit Court affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer and held that an insured’s request for reduced UM/UIM limits at the policy’s inception is binding even after liability limits are increased later in the policy’s life unless otherwise specified by the insured in writing.

According to the opinion in Nationwide v. Merdjanian, Andre Merdjanian purchased an auto policy with Nationwide requesting $15,000/$30,000 UM/UIM coverage in writing.  Later in the policy’s life, Merdjanian increased his liability coverage from $25,000/$50,000 to $100,000/$300,000 but failed to sign or return any forms to Nationwide regarding a change to his UM/UIM limits.  According to the opinion, Merdjanian later advised his agent he desired “full coverage for [his] entire family” but when he received a “Declarations Page” still listing his $15,000/$30,000 UM/UIM coverage, he never objected to the lower limits.  In 2001, Merdjanian’s wife was killed and his two sons were injured when an uninsured motorist struck one of his covered vehicles.  He submitted a claim for UM/UIM benefits in the amounts of $300,000/ $900,000 but was denied based on his initial request for reduced UM/UIM coverage at the policy’s inception.

The Third Circuit Court dismissed Merdjanian’s attempts to liken his case to Blood v. Old Guard Ins. Co., stating the Blood insured had been presented with a “change request form” containing sections pertaining to both liability and UM/UIM coverage whereas this did not occur in the instant case.  The Court held that Nationwide complied with the MVFRL’s UM/UIM language and that, because Merdjanian failed to specify any additional desire to change these limits, his initial written request was binding.