The appellate court noted that it was proceeding under a de novo standard of appeal, meaning that it was not limited by the trial court's rationale and could affirm or reverse the trial court decision on any basis.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the absolute auto exclusion, which excluded coverage for bodily injury under the policy for any incident arising out of the use of an auto, was found to be ambiguous in the context of this policy and was, therefore, found to be not enforceable.
The Superior Court additionally ruled that the ownership clause in the absolute auto exclusion was found to be ambiguous when it failed to specify whose ownership, maintenance, use, or entrustment served to trigger that exclusion.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the absolute auto exclusion, which excluded coverage for bodily injury under the policy for any incident arising out of the use of an auto, was found to be ambiguous in the context of this policy and was, therefore, found to be not enforceable.
The Superior Court additionally ruled that the ownership clause in the absolute auto exclusion was found to be ambiguous when it failed to specify whose ownership, maintenance, use, or entrustment served to trigger that exclusion.
In the end, the appellate court reversed the trial court decisions and found that the carriers did owe a duty to defend and indemnify its insured under the facts presented.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Court Summaries” in the Pennsylvania Bar News By Timothy L. Clawges (June 9, 2025).
Source of image: Photo by Vlad Deep from www.unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.