Court upheld applicability of "regular use exclusion" in UIM motorist case where driver regularly used vehicle within the scope of his father's permission.
The Superior Court upheld the applicability of a "regular use exclusion" in an underinsured motorist case involving a drunk driver. The plaintiff was operating his father's vehicle at the time of the accident but resided with his mother. The plaintiff's father permitted him to use the vehicle to commute to and from work and for emergencies only. The plaintiff had been using the vehicle for these purposes for two weeks before the accident occurred and had worked a total of seven days. One night after work, while the vehicle was still in the plaintiff's possession, he received a call from a friend who needed a ride. It was while the plaintiff was retrieving his friend that the accident with a drunk driver occurred. After recovering liability benefits under the third-party's policy, the plaintiff and his mother, the co-plaintiff, commenced a declaratory judgment action against the mother's auto insurer. The auto insurer argued that coverage was excluded by the regular use exclusion in the policy. The regular use exclusion provided: "We do not cover...bodily injury to you or a resident using a non-owned motor vehicle or a non-owned miscellaneous vehicle which is regularly used by you or a resident but not insured for Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist Coverage under this policy." The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the regular use exclusion was inapplicable. The insurer appealed, and the Superior Court reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The only issue was whether the plaintiff regularly used his father's vehicle. The test for "regular use" in Pennsylvania is whether the use is "regular" or "habitual." Because the plaintiff regularly used the vehicle within the scope of his father's permission to go to and from work, his use fell within the confines of the exclusion.
Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013