Lightner, M. v. Carlevale's Custom Cars, LLC, 331 MDA 2016

Gino Frattaroli brought his 1970 Corvette to Carlevale Custom Cars for restoration; Carlevale invited him to test-drive the vehicle with an employee present.
During the July 24, 2013 test drive, Frattaroli collided with motorcyclist Matthew Lightner, who was injured; Frattaroli did not have insurance on the Corvette at the time.
Lightner sued seeking a declaration that the Corvette was a covered vehicle under Carlevale’s commercial auto policy with Grange and that Grange owed a duty to defend and indemnify Frattaroli.
Grange denied coverage and sought a declaration that Frattaroli was not an “insured” under the policy and that it had no duty to defend or indemnify him.
The trial court granted Lightner’s motion for summary judgment, finding the policy ambiguous and construing it for coverage; Grange appealed.
The Superior Court reversed, holding the policy unambiguous: the "Who Is An Insured" clause covers Carlevale for covered autos (including nonowned autos) but does not list the owner of a nonowned auto as an insured, so Grange had no duty to defend/indemnify Frattaroli.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lightner)	Defendant's Argument (Grange)	Held
Whether Frattaroli (owner/driver of a nonowned auto used in Carlevale’s business) is an “insured” entitled to defense/indemnity under Carlevale’s policy	Policy is ambiguous when read as a whole and should be construed to include an owner-driver of a nonowned auto used in the insured’s business	Policy language is unambiguous: "You" means named insured (Carlevale); subsection for "anyone else while using with your permission a covered auto you own, hire or borrow" does not apply because Carlevale did not own/hire/borrow the vehicle; therefore Frattaroli is not an insured and Grange owes no duty	Superior Court held the policy unambiguous: Frattaroli was not an insured; Grange had no duty to defend or indemnify; trial court order reversed

Bamber v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 680 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. 1996) (when policyholder did not own/hire/borrow vehicle, the "anyone else" subsection and its exceptions do not apply)
Municipality of Mt. Lebanon v. Reliance Ins. Co., 778 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard principles for interpreting insurance contracts; policy language controls)
Tyler v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 779 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2001) (courts must not distort policy language to create ambiguity; terms must have more than one reasonable interpretation to be ambiguous)
Byoung Suk An v. Victoria Fire & Casualty Co., 113 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2015) (courts should not expand coverage beyond that provided in the policy)
Brezenski v. World Truck Transfer, Inc., 755 A.2d 36 (Pa. Super. 2000) (employer vicarious liability under respondeat superior can trigger insurer coverage for employer)