State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dooner, 189 A.3d 479

On May 15–16, 2014 Erin Dooner (State Farm insured) and Jean Fonte (driver) were involved in a single-car accident; Fonte later drove Dooner from a DUI center in Fonte’s insured 2004 Dodge Stratus.
While Fonte was driving home, an altercation occurred; Dooner grabbed the steering wheel, causing the Stratus to swerve and collide head-on with a police cruiser, injuring officers.
State Farm filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dooner under her policy.
The policy provides liability coverage for an “insured” including for the “maintenance or use of: (1) a non‑owned car,” with “non‑owned car” defined as a car in the “lawful possession of you or any resident relative.”
The narrow legal question was whether Dooner was in “lawful possession” of the Stratus when she grabbed the wheel, thereby triggering State Farm coverage.
Trial court granted State Farm summary judgment; Superior Court affirmed, finding no genuine issue that Dooner lacked lawful possession (and that any possession would not have been lawful).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dooner’s grabbing the wheel made the vehicle a “non‑owned car” in her "lawful possession" (triggering State Farm liability coverage)	Fonte: policy ambiguous because it does not define “possession” or “lawful,” so ambiguity should be construed for insured; Dooner had control of the car when she grabbed the wheel.	State Farm: possession requires control; Dooner did not exercise control of the vehicle—Fonte remained in driver’s seat with control of pedals and overall vehicle operation; even if possession existed it was not “lawful.”	Court: Affirmed for State Farm — Dooner was not in possession for purposes of the policy; alternatively, any possession would not have been lawful, so no coverage.

Madison Construction Company v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company, 735 A.2d 100 (Pa. 1999) (ambiguous policy terms construed for the insured)
Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. St. John, 106 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (rules for interpreting insurance policy language)
Byoung Suk An v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co., 113 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2015) (summary judgment standard in insurance coverage disputes)
Commonwealth v. Wolen, 685 A.2d 1384 (Pa. Super. 1996) (control/actual physical control of a vehicle determined by totality of circumstances)
North Carolina Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 608 S.E.2d 112 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) (persuasive authority holding passenger grabbing wheel did not constitute possession and any possession would not be lawful)