This exclusion allows an automobile insurance carrier to deny coverage where an insured is driving a vehicle that is regularly available for the use of the insured but which is not covered by that insurance company but some other carrier.
In the case of Jones v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 690 WDA 2020 (Pa. Super. July 3, 2024 Stabile, J., Murray, J. and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Murray, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the validity of the regular use exclusion in a UIM policy after the case was remanded back down the appellate ladder for further review of the case in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in the case Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 308 A.3d 780 (Pa. 2024).
In the Rush decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the validity of the regular use exclusion.
Here in this Jones decision, the Superior Court ruled that the new precedent upholding the validity of the regular use exclusion in UIM policies supported the trial court’s judgment in favor of the carrier in this case which involved an accident where the insured was injured while operating a regularly used, employer/owned work vehicle. As such, the judgment of the trial court in favor of the carrier was affirmed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert” Law.com (July 23, 2024).
In the case of Jones v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 690 WDA 2020 (Pa. Super. July 3, 2024 Stabile, J., Murray, J. and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Murray, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the validity of the regular use exclusion in a UIM policy after the case was remanded back down the appellate ladder for further review of the case in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in the case Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 308 A.3d 780 (Pa. 2024).
In the Rush decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the validity of the regular use exclusion.
Here in this Jones decision, the Superior Court ruled that the new precedent upholding the validity of the regular use exclusion in UIM policies supported the trial court’s judgment in favor of the carrier in this case which involved an accident where the insured was injured while operating a regularly used, employer/owned work vehicle. As such, the judgment of the trial court in favor of the carrier was affirmed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert” Law.com (July 23, 2024).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.