The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Petition for Allowance of Appeal in a case where a police officer was injured in the course and scope of his employment. The officer sought underinsured motorist coverage on his personal automobile insurance policy. The Superior Court, in a memorandum decision, held that he was not entitled to coverage due to a “regular use” exclusion in his policy. In the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, the officer argued that he had no control over the employer-provided vehicle insurance and it was a violation of public policy to enforce the exclusion against a first responder.
The Court has certified the following question for appeal:
Whether, under the MVFRL and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision inBurstein v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 809 A.2d 204 (Pa.2002), the “regular use” exclusion to underinsured motorist coverage in an automobile insurance policy is valid where the insured is a police officer, who has sustained bodily injury in the course of performing his duties while driving a police vehicle, for which vehicle he could not have obtained underinsured motorist coverage.
Argument has been scheduled for April, 2010.
By Scott B. Cooper, Esq. (Pa. Justice News)