On June 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allowance of appeal in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange regarding the issue of whether the Superior Court erred “by finding that the ‘regular use exclusion’ contained in Pennsylvania auto insurance policies violates the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.[ ] [§] 1701, et. seq.[.]”

Last fall, a unanimous, three-judge panel of the Superior Court held, as a matter of first impression, that a regular use exclusion was unenforceable because it limited the scope of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage required by the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). See Rush v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2021 PA Super 215 (Pa. Super. 2021). Regular use exclusions are common in Pennsylvania and preclude coverage for injuries to an insured using a vehicle that they do not own but regularly use.

In support of its holding, the Superior Court noted that an insurer can only avoid its duty to provide UIM coverage when the insured has executed “a statutorily prescribed rejection form.”

This case arises from a 2015 motor vehicle accident in which Matthew Rush, a City of Easton police detective, was injured when two other drivers crashed into his police car. Erie Insurance Exchange denied the Rushes’ UIM claim pursuant to the regular use exclusion, as it was undisputed that Mr. Rush did not own, but regularly used, the police car involved in the accident.