The definition of the word "you" in the household exclusion section of Harleysville Insurance's excess underinsured motorist policy is too ambiguous, a Blair County judge has found.
In the case of Riley v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance, Blair County Court of Common Pleas Judge Elizabeth A. Doyle found that by applying the insurance carrier's strict definition of the term "you" into the language of the policy, several different meanings arose, and therefore found the exclusion policy was ambiguous under the circumstances and unenforceable.
This content has been archived.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]
