{"id":1665,"date":"2024-01-30T14:15:03","date_gmt":"2024-01-30T19:15:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/?p=1665"},"modified":"2024-01-30T14:16:28","modified_gmt":"2024-01-30T19:16:28","slug":"glen-shikunov-secures-supreme-court-reversal-in-decision-upholding-validity-of-regular-use-exclusion-in-pennsylvania","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/2024\/01\/glen-shikunov-secures-supreme-court-reversal-in-decision-upholding-validity-of-regular-use-exclusion-in-pennsylvania\/","title":{"rendered":"Glen Shikunov Secures Supreme Court Reversal in Decision Upholding Validity of \u201cRegular Use Exclusion\u201d in Pennsylvania"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a recent decision in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 77 MAP 2022 (Pa. Jan. 29, 2024) (Maj. Op. by Donohue, J.)( Wecht, J., Concurring) <\/em>the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered the question of whether the \u201cregular use exclusion,\u201d commonly included in auto insurance policies in Pennsylvania, violates the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Laws.<\/p>\n

In Rush<\/em>, the claimant was a police office injured while operating his police vehicle in the course and scope of his employment. After recovering the liability benefits from the tortfeasor as well as the underinsured (\u201cUIM\u201d) motorist benefits from the policy insuring the police vehicle involved in the accident, he sought additional benefits from two separate household auto insurance policies issued to him as a named insured. Neither of the household policies insured the police cruiser involved in the accident and both contained the \u201cregular use exclusion,\u201d which eliminated UIM coverage where the claimant occupied a vehicle he regularly used or had access to but was not insured under the subject policy. The insurer denied UIM benefits subject to the \u201cregular use exclusion\u201d and the claimant filed suit.<\/p>\n

The trial court and Superior Court both concluded that the exclusion violates the express statutory provisions of the MVFRL and was thus void. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision and applied the exclusion to preclude recovery. In its analysis, the Supreme Court began by noting that the \u201cregular use exclusion\u201d has been upheld by the Supreme Court on prior occasions in both Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 809 A.2d 204, (Pa. 2002)<\/em> and Williams v. GEICO Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 32 A.3d 1195, (Pa. 2011)<\/em>. The Court explained that in Burstein<\/em> it rejected the idea that the same exclusion violates the \u201cportability\u201d requirements of UIM coverage and explained that the Superior Court\u2019s decision effectively renders UIM coverage \u201cmandatory in virtually all instances.\u201d The Court explained that \u201cif UIM coverage must follow the person in all circumstances, then an insurer cannot exclude coverage in any situation.\u201d In finding that the Burstein<\/em> decision expressly rejected this premise, the Court rejected the unlimited portability argument, accordingly.<\/p>\n

Turning to the Williams<\/em> decision, the Court initially acknowledged that the primary focus therein concerned public policy considerations. However, the Court refused to omit analysis of the claimant\u2019s argument in Williams<\/em> that the exclusion violates \u201cthe express terms of the MVFRL.\u201d Specifically, in Williams<\/em>, the claimant also argued that the exclusion violated 75 Pa.C.S. \u00a7 1731.<\/em> In rejecting the claimant\u2019s arguments that 75 Pa.C.S. \u00a7 1731<\/em> requires payment of the UIM benefits purchased due to a lack of a statutory waiver of those benefits, the Court analogized the argument to the same UIM \u201cportability\u201d argument that it previously rejected. The Court concluded that \u201cOnce it is decided that UIM coverage is not universally portable\u2014given the express non-priority of an insured\u2019s UIM policy coverage in Section 1733 and the contrary priority of coverage for first party benefits\u2014any argument that Section 1731 prohibits exclusions from coverage in the insurance contract must fail.\u201d The Court re-affirmed the vitality of the Burstein <\/em>and Williams<\/em> decisions and held that the \u201cregular use exclusion\u201d is a permissible auto insurance limitation in Pennsylvania, accordingly.<\/p>\n

The Rush<\/em> decision can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For additional questions, please contact Glen Shikunov, Esq. and\/or Scott Tredwell, Esq.<\/p>\n

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.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a recent decision in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 77 MAP 2022 (Pa. Jan. 29, 2024) (Maj. Op. by Donohue, J.)( Wecht, J., Concurring) the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered the question of whether the \u201cregular use exclusion,\u201d commonly included in auto insurance policies in Pennsylvania, violates the provisions of the Motor Vehicle […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[13,25],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1665"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1665"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1665\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1666,"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1665\/revisions\/1666"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mccormickpriore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}