Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review the Validity of Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusions in Automobile Policies

June 6, 2018

Last year, we reported on a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Safe Auto Insurance v. Oriental-Guillermo, 2017 Pa. Super. 297 (September 18, 2017) where the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld an Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusion in an automobile policy issued by Safe Auto Insurance Company (“Safe Auto”) which excluded from coverage those individuals who lived with the policyholder, but were not related to the policyholder and not specifically listed on the policy.  The appeal arose from a Declaratory Judgment Action that Safe Auto filed in Lehigh County.  The trial court granted Safe Auto’s Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that Safe Auto was not obligated to provide insurance coverage to Rachel Dixon, who was driving the Safe Auto policyholder’s car, was unrelated to the policy holder, and was not listed as a driver on his automobile insurance policy.

On June 4, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the validity of the Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusion in automobile insurance policies.  The Supreme Court will address the following issues:

(1)  Whether Pennsylvania Superior Court erred in upholding the “Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusion” in a personal auto policy as valid and enforceable and not in conflict with the MVFRL; and

(2)  Whether the “Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusion” conflicts with public policy in Pennsylvania as embodied in Section 1786 of the MVFRL, which implicitly allows for permissive users of an insured vehicle to also be considered insureds under the owner’s policy?

Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo, No. 791 MAL 2017 (Pa. June 4, 2018).

As the law stands, your roommate or significant other will not be covered by your Safe Auto Insurance policy if he or she is involved in an accident and not specifically listed as an insured driver on your insurance policy.  The decision, if overturned, could extend insurance coverage to these household members, who are permissive users, but are not resident relatives or named insureds on the vehicle owner’s insurance policy.  We will keep you apprised of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Please contact David R. Friedman with any questions.

David R. Friedman

Office: King of Prussia, Philadelphia
Phone: (610) 977-4106
Email: dfriedman@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation, Coverage, First Party PIP / MPC, Fraud/SIU, General Liability, Premises Liability, Products Liability, Third Party, UM/UIM