The Pennsylvania Superior Court has declined to apply an auto insurance policy's "household exclusion" to a case where a woman was thrown from a motorcycle and then hit by another car.
The unanimous three-judge panel reaffirmed previous jurisprudence that draws a distinction between policies, which courts are to construe broadly, and policy exclusions, which courts have construed narrowly. The panel followed its previous directive to construe household exclusions narrowly in deciding not to apply a list of factors to the case of Swarner v. Mutual Benefit Group that may have otherwise stood for the conclusion that plaintiff Rebecca Swarner was "occupying" the motorcycle she was thrown from before another car ran her over and caused serious injuries. The four factors, set forth by the state Supreme Court in Utica Mutual Insurance v. Contrisciane in 1984, broadly define the concept of occupying a vehicle. The case dealt with whether a plaintiff was insured under his employer's policy so as to qualify for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
This content has been archived.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
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]
