Larkin v. GEICO General Insurance Company, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01802 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2015)

Household vehicle exclusions upheld in two separate motor vehicle policies where the motorcycle the plaintiff was operating at the time of the accident was not a covered vehicle

This case dealt with motions to dismiss filed by the defendants GEICO and Nationwide. The issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to UIM benefits with respect to policies that had been issued by those insurers. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was operating a motorcycle that he jointly owned with his father. The motorcycle was insured by Progressive; however, the plaintiff had rejected UIM coverage under the Progressive policy. Therefore, the plaintiff sought UIM coverage under the GEICO and Nationwide policies, for which he was a relative and household member. The motorcycle was not a covered vehicle under either policy. Both insurers denied UIM coverage due to household vehicle exclusions included in the policies. With respect to the Nationwide policy, the court held that the UIM endorsement, when read as a whole, clearly only applied to covered vehicles. The preamble of the endorsement specifically stated that the UIM coverage only applied to covered vehicles. Likewise, the court held that the household vehicle exclusion contained in the GEICO policy was also unambiguous and applied to preclude coverage. The policy did not list the subject motorcycle, and under the terms of the GEICO policy, it insured only the listed vehicles. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the motorcycle did not fall under the household vehicle exclusion since it was jointly owned with the plaintiff’s father. The court held that the clear language of the policy provided that UIM coverage only applied to covered vehicles, regardless of which, or how many, members of the household owned them.

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.