Recently, in Simpson v. LM General Insurance Co., No. CV 23-4133, 2024 WL 4844793, (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2024), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the insurance carrier’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgement to the Plaintiff sua sponte, holding that the regular use exclusion is inapplicable to an employee’s use of a vehicle when the use is incidental to their job responsibilities, and there is no general understanding that the vehicle is available for the employee’s use as part of his job description.
The Plaintiff was injured while driving his employer’s loaner vehicle, at his employer’s request, to refill the gas tank. Plaintiff subsequently made a claim for underinsured motorist benefits (“UIM”) under his household policy. Plaintiff’s insurance carrier denied coverage relying on a “regular use exclusion” included within the policy.
The District Court initially explained that the “regular use exclusion” is unambiguous. The Court further explained how the terms used in regular use exclusions are interpreted by the courts; the Court stated that “‘furnished’ means ‘to provide or supply;’ ‘available’ means ‘suitable or ready for use’ and ‘readily obtainable, accessible;’ and ‘regular’ means ‘usual, normal or customary.’” Based on these definitions the Court stated that ‘“the test of a regular use exclusion is not use but availability for use or ownership by a member of a group who would be likely to make their cars available for each other’s use,” and that “‘regular use’ suggests a “principal” or “habitual” use as opposed to merely an “occasional or incidental use”.
Against that backdrop, the District Court explained that courts have held that “the regular use exclusion applies when a fleet of vehicles, as opposed to a specific vehicle, are available for the use of an insured”. But in applying that standard to the instant case, the Court distinguished this case from Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, No. 03-4575, 2004 WL 603416, at 5-6 (E.D. Pa. 2004) where a Park Ranger’s “job responsibilities included riding in and/or operating Park Commission vehicles on a regular basis.” The Court explained that in cases where the regular use exclusion is enforced, and coverage is denied “the insureds drove one of many fleet vehicles as part of their principal job responsibilities” and the vehicles “were furnished for the employee’s principal use and [were] necessary to complete their principal job functions”.
Conversely, relying on Dixon v. GEICO, 1 A.3d 921 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010), the District Court emphasized that since most of the Plaintiff’s job responsibilities did not involve use of a vehicle, there was “no implied understanding with the owner of the vehicle that [the Plaintiff] could use the automobile…at such times as he desired, if available” but rather Plaintiff “merely drove the vehicle to a car wash and returned it to the lot, “where someone else would put it to regular use.”’ In turn, the Court analogized the instant case more closely with Roeser v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 2009-Ohio-3395, 183 Ohio App. 3d 168, 916 N.E.2d 533 where the court held that the regular use exclusion did not apply when 1) the vehicle was not available to the insured for most of the time; 2) the insured’s use of the vehicle, at best, was occasional; 3) the insured’s use of the vehicle required permission; 4) the insured’s use of the vehicle was only within the circumscribed scope of his duties as a mechanic; and 5) there is nothing in the record to suggest that the insured was acting outside the scope of employment.
The District Court concluded that the employee’s primary job responsibilities did not involve operating employer vehicles and thus his use of the vehicles was incidental, as opposed to “regular.” Thus, the Court denied the insurance carrier’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgement to the Plaintiff sua sponte.
The Simpson decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Molly S. Hecht, Esq. and/or Glen Shikunov, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
