Atty. Candace N. Edgar
Candace is a member of the Professional Liability Department with over 15 years of litigation experience devoted almost exclusively to insurance defense litigation, representing both insurers and insureds in state, federal and appellate courts in Pennsylvania. Candace has successfully defended a myriad of cases, including insurance coverage, bad faith, first-and third-party auto, transportation, premises liability, employment, construction, medical malpractice and subrogation cases.
Profile Summary
About Candace N. Edgar at a glance
Candace N. Edgar is a Special Counsel based in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, practicing at Marshall Dennehey. They have 18+ years of legal experience, licensed to practice since 2008. Their practice focuses on litigation and insurance. Educated at Penn State Dickinson Law (J.D., 2008) and Millersville University of Pennsylvania (B.S., 2004). Active member of Associations & memberships Dauphin County Bar Association Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Pennsylvania Bar Association Pennsylvania Defense Institute. Serands clients in Camp Hill, PA and the surrounding metropolitan area.
Want to Get Service From This Attorney?
Sign up free and choose one of the two methods below.
Have a legal question? Sign up free, submit it through the Ask the Attorney module and receive a focused answer from a specialist.
- Free to ask a question
- Answers from specialist attorneys
- Optional private / anonymous question
Request an online video meeting or an in-person consultation at the attorney's office. Pick a time that works for you and share the details securely.
- Online video meeting
- In-person at the attorney's office
- Secure messaging and payment
About
- Candace is a member of the Professional Liability Department with over 15 years of litigation experience devoted almost exclusively to insurance defense litigation, representing both insurers and insureds in state, federal and appellate courts in Pennsylvania
- Candace has successfully defended a myriad of cases, including insurance coverage, bad faith, first-and third-party auto, transportation, premises liability, employment, construction, medical malpractice and subrogation cases
- She is experienced in all facets of a case from pre-suit investigation through verdict and appeal
- She has presented at several insurance conferences and seminars, as well as provided training to claims professionals on best claims handling practices
- Candace graduated from Penn State University Dickinson School of Law in 2008 where she was recognized for her accomplishments in oral and written advocacy, including receipt of the ALI-ABA Scholastic and Leadership Award, The George F. Douglas, Jr. Memorial Award and the CALI Award for Excellence in Advocacy to name a few
- Prior to law school, she graduated cum laude from Millersville University where she studied Broadcast Journalism and Political Affairs
- Classes/Seminars Taught •Life Care Plans: Cutting Them Down To Size, 2023 PAMIC Claims Summit, Gettysburg, PA, April 19, 2023 •Retail & Hospitality Webinar, The Harmonie Group, February 23, 2021 Pro Bono •Dauphin County Pro Bono Program Community Service •Love the Hill - Wildheart Ministries, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Results U.S
- Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Affirms Precedential Decision We prevailed in the U.S
- Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a precedential decision upholding application of a household vehicle exclusion
- A fifteen-year-old was seriously injured while riding an uninsured dirt bike on private property
- After recovering the bodily injury limit of the tortfeasor’s policy, he also recovered UIM benefits under the two household policies
- However, the other household policy underwritten by the same carrier contained a household vehicle exclusion, which excluded UIM benefits under the facts of the accident, so coverage was denied
- The carrier then filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, but lost because the District Court concluded that the household vehicle exclusion acted as an impermissible de facto waiver of stacking as a result of the carrier paying UIM benefits under the other household policy
- On appeal, a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s Order, holding in a precedential opinion that the household vehicle exclusion was valid and enforceable because the dirt bike involved in the underlying accident was uninsured
- Thought Leadership Legal Updates for Insurance Services Third Circuit Upholds Household Vehicle Exclusion for Uninsured Dirt Bike, Overturning District Court Ruling September 9, 2024 The Gallagher decision initially led to widespread uncertainty and confusion
- However, Pennsylvania Courts have since given its holding substantial clarity and limitation, as this recent precedential decision from the Third Circuit demonstrates
- Fifteen-year-old Levi Werley was seriously injured while riding an uninsured dirt bike on private property in Kempton, Pennsylvania
- The tortfeasor, who was also 15 years old, struck the dirt bike while driving a Jeep CJ-7
- The Jeep was insured under a policy providing $100,000 in bodily injury coverage, which was paid, in full
- Levi then sought payment of UIM benefits under the two Mid-Century policies in the Werley household
- The one policy belonged to Levi’s parents and insured four vehicles, providing $250,000/$500,000 in UIM benefits
- The second policy belonged to Levi’s father and sister and insured one vehicle, similarly providing $250,000/$500,000 in UIM benefits
- Stacking had been waived under both policies
- However, pursuant to Donovan v
- State Farm Mut
- Auto
- Ins
- Co., 526 A.3d 1145, 1157 (Pa. 2021), the stacking waiver executed for the multiple-vehicle policy was invalid as to inter-policy stacking or stacking amongst separate policies
- As stated, the dirt bike Levi was riding at the time of the accident was completely uninsured, so it had no coverage of any kind, including UIM benefits
- Although both household policies contained household vehicle exclusions, their language materially differed
- Specifically, the household vehicle exclusion of the single-vehicle policy applied only to an accident involving a “car.” Because Mid-Century determined that the dirt bike did not meet the definition of a “car” under the policy, it paid Levi the $250,000 UIM limit
- In contrast, the household vehicle exclusion under the multiple-vehicle policy applied to any accident involving a “vehicle,” which included a dirt bike
- Accordingly, Mid-Century denied coverage based upon the household vehicle exclusion and subsequently filed an action for declaratory judgment in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania
- In a 55-page opinion, the District Court decided in favor of Levi and invalidated Mid-Century’s household vehicle exclusion under the multiple-vehicle policy, concluding that it acted as an impermissible de facto waiver of stacking in violation of 75 Pa
- C.S.A. 1738 and Gallagher v
- GEICO Indemnification Co., 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019)
- Central to the District Court’s decision was Mid-Century’s payment of UIM benefits under the single-vehicle, household policy because such payment meant that Levi was no longer seeking UIM benefits in the first instance
- Instead, Levi had recovered UIM benefits he was now seeking to stack upon, differentiating this case from the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Erie Ins
- Exch. v
- Mione, 289 A.3d 524 (Pa. 2023), where the host vehicle had no UIM coverage and both the household polices excluded UIM coverage under their household vehicle exclusion
- On appeal, a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision vacating the District Court’s order, holding that the household vehicle exclusion was valid under these facts, pursuant to recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent
- See Mione, supra
- Rush v
- Erie Ins
- Exch., 308 A.3d 780 (Pa. 2024)
- The Third Circuit rejected the District Court’s holding that the uninsured status of the dirt bike was irrelevant, finding that the Werleys’ failure to insure the dirt bike meant that they had no reasonable expectation of coverage, thus, “application of the household vehicle exclusion here deprived the Werleys of nothing for which they had bargained.” According to the Third Circuit, a household vehicle exclusion is invalid only if: (1) a policy insures the vehicle involved in the accident, (2) that policy provides UIM coverage on that vehicle, and (3) the household vehicle exclusion of a second policy sought to stack on top of the first policy would exclude UIM coverage for that vehicle
- Because no policy insured the dirt bike, the Third Circuit concluded that the household vehicle exclusion of the multiple-vehicle policy was applied validly
- This case and other recent decisions are evidence that the household vehicle exclusion remains a valid and enforceable exclusion for Pennsylvania insurers with its application prohibited in only very limited circumstances
- Legal Update for Insurance Services - September 9, 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey
- It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship
- We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects
- If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com
- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2024 Marshall Dennehey
- All Rights Reserved
Practice Areas Explained
Candace N. Edgar's Areas of Practice
Each practice area below reflects the types of cases Candace N. Edgar handles, with a brief overview of what that area of law covers.
Civil litigation attorneys for breach of contract, business disputes, civil rights, and class action lawsuits.
Candace N. Edgar is one of 454,532 litigation attorneys indexed nationally. Browse litigation attorneys in Pennsylvania →
Insurance attorneys for coverage disputes, bad faith claims, denied claims, and policy disputes.
Candace N. Edgar is one of 121,912 insurance attorneys indexed nationally. Browse insurance attorneys in Pennsylvania →
Jurisdictional Context
Why local counsel matters in Pennsylvania
Practicing law in Pennsylvania. Legal matters in Pennsylvania are governed by state-specific rules of civil and criminal procedure, statutes of limitations, and substantive law. Cases originating in Camp Hill are typically filed in the local municipal court or the appropriate Pennsylvania state district court, depending on subject matter and amount in controversy. An attorney licensed in Pennsylvania brings working knowledge of local procedural deadlines, judicial practices in this andnue, and the substantive law that applies to cases brought here. Out-of-state attorneys generally cannot represent clients in Pennsylvania courts without local counsel or pro hac vice admission.
Looking for additional Pennsylvania attorneys? Browse all attorneys in Camp Hill or all attorneys in Pennsylvania.
Frequently Asked
Common questions about Candace N. Edgar
Where is Candace N. Edgar's law office located?
What practice areas does Candace N. Edgar handle?
How long has Candace N. Edgar practiced law?
Where did Candace N. Edgar go to law school?
How can I contact Candace N. Edgar for a consultation?
Practice Areas
Education
Reviews
No reviews yet.