Until recently the regular use exclusion, typically found in most automobile insurance policies had been routinely upheld, for decades, in every state and federal court decision as a valid exclusion under Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law [MVFRL].

But the plaintiffs bar has been relentless in its pursuit to have automobile insurance policy exclusions overturned as invalid under an argument that the exclusions act as de facto waivers of coverage when the MVFRL requires carriers to obtain express, written waivers of coverage from its insureds. After supporting several candidates in their quests to secure seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the plaintiffs bar was finally successful with this argument in securing the supposed eradication of the household exclusion by that new court in the case of Gallagher v. Geico, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019) after decades of previous decisions upholding that exclusion as valid. Once they secured that stunning success, the plaintiffs bar quickly set their sights on attempting to invalidate the regular use exclusion under essentially the same analysis.