The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case that could invalidate the regular use exclusion in uninsured and underinsured coverage policies.

The justices on Monday agreed to take up the case Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange to address whether the regular use exclusion—which allows carriers to reject claims for injuries a person sustained when using a car they regularly drive, but don’t own or have a policy for—violates the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Further, the justices asked the parties to address whether such a holding would conflict with precedent on the issue, including the 2002 suit Burstein v. Prudential Property and Casualty and the 2011 decision Williams v. Geico.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]