A woman designated as a "principal driver" on her fiance’s insurance policy was not a "named insured" under that policy, the state Superior Court has ruled, clearing the way for the woman to pursue a third-party tort claim unfettered by the policy’s limited tort limitations.
In so holding, the unanimous three-judge panel, in reversing a York County judge, ruled plaintiff Sally McWeeney’s status as a permissive driver under her fiance’s policy did not render her an "insured" driver under Section 1705 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, which would have otherwise bound her to the man’s limited tort election.
