In the case of Shepherd v. Talotta, No. 2:20-CV-01046-CFK (USDC EDPA, April 22, 2021), Judge Kenney of the Eastern District Court upheld a regular use exclusion to underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) and rejected the Plaintiff’s public policy and Gallagher v. Geico arguments.
Plaintiff Shepherd was seeking UIM coverage for injuries suffered by in a car accident while he was driving a UPS delivery truck in the course of his employment with UPS. After resolving the claim against the tortfeasor, the Plaintiff turned to his UIM coverage under his own personal car insurance policy with First Liberty Insurance Company. That policy provided for UIM coverage but contained the common exclusion for injuries sustained while driving a non-owned vehicle provided for the insured’s regular use. Plaintiff was a regular user of UPS delivery trucks. UPS did not provide UM/UIM coverage for its drivers.
The Plaintiff was urging the Court to find that the “regular use exclusion” violated Pennsylvania law and was contrary to public policy. The Court rejected this argument. The Court pointed out that if the “regular use exclusion” was not enforced, Plaintiff could drive any non-owned, uninsured, vehicle, and then pursue a UM/UIM claim without anyone paying for the coverage on the host vehicle.
The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the carrier. This case is yet another example of both State and Federal Courts in Pennsylvania upholding the regular use exclusion.
Questions regarding this opinion can be directed to David Friedman.
