INSURANCE LAW: Subsequently discovered injury did not make unknown driver a hit-and-run driver

After the two car accident, the drivers got out, spoke to each other and agreed there was no damage.  Later the plaintiff’s brought a UM claim against his insurer claiming the other driver qualified as a hit-an- run driver because the plaintiff did not have his identity.  The Superior Court grants the insurers summary judgment motion.

Carter v. Philadelphia Ins. Co. (July 30, 2014)