The judges of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of an insurer defending the validity of its "Other Insurance" clause and enforcement of a stated UIM limit. The case is Meyers v. Travelers Ins. Co., 597 F. Supp. 3d 745 (E.D. Pa. 2022).

Ellen Meyers was severely injured in a car crash; the payment from the other driver's insurer was insufficient to cover the costs of her injuries. Meyers filed UIM claims under multiple policies and received $100,000 from Erie, her primary insurer, and an aggregate $1.5 million from her secondary insurers, Progressive and AIG. Each of these policies provided stacked UIM benefits, which is the default in Pennsylvania. As Meyers and her mother, Marie White, were living together at the time of the accident, Meyers also filed a UIM claim with Travelers, her mother's insurer. The stacked UIM limit in the Travelers policy was $300,000, but White had waived stacking.

The stacking waiver operated as a function of the policy's "Other Insurance" clause. When the stacking waiver was in play and coverage from Travelers was secondary, the "Other Insurance" clause set the UIM limit at the highest limit available from a claimant's secondary insurers. Among Meyers' secondary insurers–Progressive, AIG, and Travelers–the highest limit available was $500,000. Travelers offset their pro-rata payment against that limit and issued a payment for $85,000.