- Home
-
Attorneys
75+ Attorneys in 7 Offices
Cipriani & Werner has over 75 attorneys in 7 cities with expertise in commercial litigation, civil litigation, workers’ compensation, and more.
Pittsburgh
Harrisburg
Philadelphia
Scranton
Marlton
Wheeling
Charleston
-
Practice Areas
Our Practice Areas
Cipriani & Werner has built expertise in commercial litigation, civil litigation, and workers’ compensation.
-
Offices
Our Offices
Cipriani & Werner has offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia.
650 Washington Road Suite 700Pittsburgh, PA 15228Phone: (412) 563-25001011 Mumma Road Suite 201Lemoyne, PA 17043-1145Phone: (717) 975-9600450 Sentry Parkway Suite 200Blue Bell, PA 19422Phone: (610) 567-0700409 Lackawanna Ave Suite 402Scranton, PA 18503-2059Phone: (570) 347-0600155 Gaither Drive Suite BMt. Laurel, NJ 08054Phone: (856) 761-38001144 Market Street Suite 300Wheeling, WV 26003Phone: (304) 232-3600500 Virginia St. East Suite 750Charleston, WV 25301Phone: (304) 341-0500 -
C&W Journal
C&W Journal
Cipriani & Werner provides legal insight for business professionals.
May 2012 Edition
Regularly Used Non-Owned Vehicle UIM Exclusion Upheld
Source
Brink v. Erie Insurance Group
Analysis
In Brink, the insured police officer brought an action against his personal automobile insurer to recover underinsured motorist benefits for injuries sustained while the officer was driving a police vehicle. The trial Court, granted insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Superior Court held that the officer “regularly used” the police car within the meaning of regular use exclusion and upheld that exclusion as valid. The Court's decision was based on the clear and unambiguous language of the exclusion which precluded consideration of the insured’s expectations. The Brink Court held that an actual regular use of any particular vehicle in a fleet is not required for application of the exclusion; but rather, arises if an employee regularly uses a fleet vehicle if he regularly or habitually has access to vehicles in that fleet.
What it Means for You
The Superior Court's decision is further proof that clear and unambiguous policy terms are invaluable, especially in the context of enforcing exclusions. The Court’s broad application of this exclusion may be subject to further litigation. Nonetheless, the ruling creates favorable case for insurers attempting to enforce the regular use of non-owned vehicle exclusion. The attorneys at Cipriani & Werner are available to address any questions you may have concerning this decision.
Journal Edition
May 2008
