95 A.3d 320
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Appellants Jack C. Catania, Jr. and Deborah Ann Catania appeal a June 5, 2013 declaratory judgment in Erie’s favor.
- Catania was injured driving a delivery truck for work; the other vehicle fled, making the accident uninsured under the policy.
- Catania had a personal Erie policy; the allegedly uninsured loss invoked uninsured motorist coverage.
- Erie denied the claim on November 22, 2010, citing the regularly used non-owned vehicle exclusion.
- A declaratory judgment action was filed by Erie in Allegheny County on June 27, 2011; the trial court denied coverage.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the exclusion barred coverage for the work vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does regularly used non-owned vehicle exclusion apply here? | Catania argues exclusion is applicable and defeats coverage. | Erie contends exclusion clearly excludes regularly used non-owned vehicles. | Exclusion applies; no coverage for the work vehicle. |
| Was Erie required to prove its premium failed to account for uninsured benefits? | Appellants seek discovery of Erie’s rate structure. | Erie need not adjust premiums; exclusion means no coverage. | Trial court correct; discovery not necessary; no coverage due to exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hand v. City of Philadelphia, 65 A.3d 916 (Pa.Super.2013) (regularly used exclusion precedent in uninsured/underinsured context)
- Williams v. GEICO, 613 Pa. 113, 32 A.3d 1195 (Pa.2011) (police officer not covered under personal policy under uniform use rule)
- Brink v. Erie Ins. Group, 940 A.2d 528 (Pa.Super.2008) (regular use not required for exclusion applicability)
- McEwing v. Lititz Mut. Ins. Co., 77 A.3d 639 (Pa.Super.2013) (burden on insurer to prove policy exclusion applies)
- Pocono Summit Realty, LLC v. Ahmad Amer, LLC, 52 A.3d 261 (Pa.Super.2012) (standard of review in declaratory judgments)