In a ruling of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals has rejected as unlawful so-called regular-use exclusions in auto insurance policies, which deny uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for injuries sustained in vehicles that are regularly used by an insured by not listed on the policy.

When Beverly Hughes was injured in a motor vehicle accident, she filed a claim with her insurer, Essentia Insurance Co., under the UM/UIM benefit provision of her policy, according to the appeals court’s May 5 opinion. Essentia insured Hughes’ two classic cars, but not the “regular use vehicle” she was driving at the time of the crash.

This content has been archived.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]