Erie Insurance Wins Major Case on Workplace Vehicle Coverage
So, here’s a recent legal update that could have a big impact on how underinsured motorist coverage works—especially if you drive a company car. Erie Insurance just came out on top in a Pennsylvania court case that hinged on something called the “regular use exclusion.”
Here’s the situation: Back in 2018, a man named Richard Russo was driving a company vehicle while working for Lancaster Plumbing, Heating, Cooling and Electrical. During his shift, he got into an accident. His employer’s insurance—Donegal Insurance Group—paid him $35,000, which was the maximum available under their underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
But Russo wasn’t done. He also had a personal auto policy with Erie Insurance, covering four vehicles, and that policy included stacked UIM coverage. So he filed a claim to try and get more money from Erie, stacking his personal benefits on top of what he already received from his employer’s policy.
Erie pushed back, saying: “Hold on—we’ve got a regular use exclusion in our policy.” Basically, that clause says if you're regularly using a vehicle that you don’t own and it’s not listed on your Erie policy, then you're not covered for UIM benefits in that situation. And since Russo was driving a company vehicle every day for work, Erie argued that the exclusion applied.
Also Read:- Blockbuster Trade Rumors Link Mason McTavish to the Vancouver Canucks
- Car Overturns on Wise Road in Placer County — CHP Investigates
The case went to court. First, in 2024, a trial court sided with Erie. Russo appealed, hoping that other recent Pennsylvania cases might help his cause—like Gallagher v. Geico and Rush v. Erie . But the Superior Court wasn’t convinced. They looked closely at Rush , which had already validated the regular use exclusion under state law, and used that as a key precedent.
Another sticking point was whether Russo actually counted as an “insured” under the employer’s policy. The court decided he didn’t, because he wasn’t specifically named in the policy and didn’t meet the legal definition under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. So, stacking didn’t apply in his case.
The ruling really clears up how these exclusions are interpreted, especially when people are driving work vehicles regularly. It’s a big win for insurers like Erie, because it reaffirms their ability to enforce policy language around exclusions. And for policyholders, it’s a strong reminder to know exactly what’s covered in your personal policy—especially if you're using another vehicle every day that’s not listed.
This decision helps draw a clearer line for future cases and gives insurance companies firmer ground to stand on when handling similar claims.
Read More:
0 Comments