Court Upholds Regular Use Exclusion and Rejects Extension of Gallagher v. Geico Argument

In the case of Shepherd v. Talotta, No. 2:20-CV-01046-CFK (E.D. Pa. April 22, 2021 Kenney, J.), the court upheld a regular use exclusion and, in the process, rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments under Gallagher v. Geico, as well as public policy arguments.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was seeking UIM coverage for injuries suffered by the Plaintiff in a car accident while driving a UPS delivery truck in the course of his employment with UPS.

After resolving the claim against the tortfeasor, the Plaintiffs turned to their UIM coverage under their own car insurance policy. That policy provided for UIM coverage but excluded from that coverage injuries sustained while driving a non-owned vehicle provided for the insureds’ regular use.

The Plaintiff was urging the court to find that the carrier had breached its automobile insurance contract by failing to provide UIM coverage because the “regular use exclusion” violated Pennsylvania law and was contrary to public policy.

The court rejected this argument and granted summary judgment in favor of the carrier.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Brigid Q. Alford of the Camp Hill, Pennsylvania office of Marshall Dennehey for bringing this case to my attention.