UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________

No. 21-3315 _____________

MIRANDA GEIST, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Appellant

v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

_____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-21-cv-04447) District Judge: Honorable Joshua D. Wolson _____________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 15, 2022

(Filed September 29, 2022) Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

James C. Haggerty Haggerty Goldberg Schleifer & Kupersmith P.C. 1801 Market Street Suite 100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Scott B. Cooper Schmidt Kramer P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jonathan Shub Shub Law Firm 134 Kings Highway 2nd Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Counsel for Appellant

Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. Sondra A. Hemeryck Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP 70 West Madison Street Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 John J. McGrath Palmer & Barr P.C. 1880 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 401

2 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee

_________ O P I N I O N OF THE COURT _________ RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Miranda Geist was injured in an automobile accident. After discovering that the driver’s insurance coverage could not compensate her for her injuries, she sought to recover underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits under her parents’ automobile insurance policy. Her parents’ insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), offered her up to $100,000 in benefits, but Geist maintains that she is entitled to up to $200,000 in benefits because State Farm failed to seek a waiver to provide a UIM-coverage limit below the bodily injury-coverage limit when her father added a new vehicle to the policy.

Geist sued State Farm seeking a declaration to this effect. The District Court dismissed her complaint with prejudice, concluding that Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 1701-99.7 (“MVFRL”) does not require insurers to seek such elections of UIM coverage-limits when policyholders add vehicles to their existing policies. Because its decision was correct, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

3 I.

Miranda Geist sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident. Seeking compensation for her injuries, she asserted and later settled a tort claim against the driver and his insurer. Because this settlement did not fully compensate her, she made a claim to recover UIM benefits from State Farm under a Pennsylvania Personal Auto Policy issued to her parents, Kevin and Karen Iwanski (the “Policy”).

When State Farm issued the Policy in 2010, it insured two vehicles and provided liability coverage of $100,000 per person / $300,000 per accident for bodily injuries. Kevin Iwanski also elected for the Policy to provide UIM benefits of up to $50,000 per person / $100,000 per accident. From then until the date of Geist’s accident, he made only two changes to the Policy: (1) he removed the second vehicle in January 2011; and (2) added a third vehicle in February 2013. As is relevant here, at the time Iwanski added the third vehicle to the Policy, he did not execute an acknowledgment for UIM-coverage limits below the bodily injury-coverage limits.

Because her father never executed this acknowledgment when he added the third vehicle to the Policy, Geist believed that, under the Policy, she could reco