Kuhn v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48960 (E.D. Pa. March 20, 2024) (Perez, J.).
Summary judgment granted for defendant as a result of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Rush. Kuhn was working as a Philadelphia police officer operating a vehicle owned by the city when he was involved in a car crash. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries. He filed a UIM claim with defendant Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual denied the claim, and a lawsuit was initiated. Defendant contends it did not breach any duties owed because the policy contained a regular use exclusion. The regular use exclusion excludes coverage when a person is occupying a vehicle not insured.
The Supreme Court, in Rush v. Erie, 308 A.3d 780, 802 (Pa. 2024) held that the regular use exclusion is permissible under UIM coverage. The parties agreed that Pennsylvania law applies, and under Rush the policy’s regular use exclusion is permissible. It applies in this case. The police car was one afforded to which plaintiff had access on any given day. That establishes that the vehicle was regularly available for plaintiff’s use. Summary judgment granted.
