L-R: James C. Haggerty, Dennis Coyne and Jeffrey Stanton of Haggerty, Goldberg, Schleifer & Kupersmith. Courtesy photos Current Status of Household and Regular Use Exclusions
Litigation regarding the validity and enforceability of various exclusions in auto policies in Pennsylvania is a never-ending tug of war between claimants and insurance companies. The most heated battles are in the realm of household and regular use exclusions. The fight over these exclusions may finally be coming to an end.
July 25, 2024 at 12:20 PM
8 minute read
Litigation regarding the validity and enforceability of various exclusions in auto policies in Pennsylvania is a never-ending tug of war between claimants and insurance companies. The most heated battles are in the realm of household and regular use exclusions. The fight over these exclusions may finally be coming to an end. Before discussing the current status of the law in this area, let us first review the history and development of these concepts.
Household Exclusion
The household exclusion has historically been included in uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) coverage endorsements in Pennsylvania auto policies. The household exclusion bars recovery of UM and UIM benefits if the injuries arise out of the operation of a vehicle owned by the named insured or resident relative but which is not insured under the policy from which benefits are being sought. The most common claim is the personal auto-motorcycle situation where the claimant is injured while using his motorcycle which is not insured under the policy from which benefits are sought. The historical development of this exclusion is of interest in assessing its validity and enforceability.
This content has been archived.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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Waiving a Liability Insurer’s Right to Subrogation—Is It Appropriate?
The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
9 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1With DEI Top of Mind, Black Judges Discuss Growing Up During Segregation, Efforts to Diversify the Profession
- 2Big Law's Middle East Bet: Will It Pay Off?
- 3'Translate Across Disciplines': Paul Hastings’ New Tech Transactions Leader
- 4Milbank’s Revenue and Profits Surge Following Demand Increases Across the Board
- 5Fourth Quarter Growth in Demand and Worked Rates Coincided with Countercyclical Dip, New Report Indicates
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
