In a growing progression of cases analyzing the “Regular Use” exclusion in auto insurance policies, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in All State Fire and Casualty Insurance Company v. Tomasic, Civil Action No. 2:25-CV-418, 2025 WL 3165663 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2025) recently applied the analysis framework from Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sweeny, 689 F.3D 288 (3d Cir. 2012) to rule upon Motions for Judgement on the Pleadings filed by both parties in a Declaratory Judgment Action seeking a court declaration as to whether the regular use exclusion bars coverage.
In Tomasic, the defendant (“Tomasic”) maintained an insurance policy with All-State that provided coverage of $100,000 UIM benefits, stacked for two vehicles, . Tomasic was injured in an accident while riding in an employer’s vehicle that is part of the employer’s fleet. At the time of the accident, she was riding in a wheelchair-accessible van with a retirement community resident at the request and permission of the community’s security office. The State-Farm policy included a regular use exclusion for injures sustained “in, on, getting into or out of or when struck by a non-owned motor vehicle not insured for UIM coverage under this policy if that non-owned motor vehicle is available for the regular use of [Tomasic] or a resident relative.”
The Court relied on Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., explaining that indicia of regular use includes “blanket permission to use the car rather than having to request permission each time” and “an available set of keys.” Id. at 297. When someone has limited access to the fleet, there are no indicia of habitual use, and there is no understanding that they have general access to the fleet, the regular use exclusion does not apply to the coverage. Id.
The Tomasic Court first pointed to Tomasic’s irregularity in use of the vehicles. Tomasic would ride primarily in the wheelchair-accessible van of the fleet due to the nature of her job, but would only sign out the vehicle approximately once per month. The court also determined that Tomasic did not have the requisite access to the vehicles and/or availability to use the vehicles to be considered regular use. Tomasic was required to submit paperwork to the security office for review and approval that detailed the people she would be transporting, the purpose, destination, and time of the planned travel. Tomasic would have to obtain the keys from the security office and return them after she returned. When the undisputed facts pointed out were applied to the framework analysis in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., the Court determined that Tomasic did not have regular use of the vehicle and ruled in her favor; the regular use exclusion of the All-State policy did not apply and Tomasic was entitled to her UIM benefits.
In short, the Tomasic Court reenforced the notion that mere being an employee that sustains injuries in an accident while occupying a company vehicle does not automatically trigger the regular use exclusion. The undisputed facts showed that Tomasic did not have the requisite access, availability, and regularity in use of the company’s fleet vehicles. Accordingly, the Court denied All-State’s motion and granted Tomasic’s motion.
The Tomasic decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Glen Shikunov, Esq. and/or Steven Tambon, 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.