Jones v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Pa. Super. LEXIS 273 (Pa. Super. July 3, 2024) (Murray, J.)
Jones v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2024, Court of Common Pleas of Erie County decided, July 3, 2024.
In this underinsured motorist (UIM) automobile insurance action, John Jones and Tanya Jones (Appellants) appeal from the judgment entered against them and in favor of Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie), following the trial court’s grant of Erie’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. At issue is whether the “regular use” contractual exclusion, contained in Appellants’ personal automobile insurance policy issued by Erie (Policy), violates Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).1 This case returns to us on remand, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Erie Ins. Exch., 253 WAL 2022, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 595, 2024 WL 1733705 (Pa. 2024) (per curiam) (Jones II). The Jones II Court granted Erie’s petition for allowance of appeal of this panel’s prior decision in Jones v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2022 PA Super 152, 282 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2022) (Jones I).2 The Supreme Court vacated Jones I and remanded the matter to this Court “for further proceedings consistent with Rush [II.]” Jones II; see also generally Rush II. Consistent with Jones II and Rush II, we affirm.
[t]his case stems from a motor vehicle accident wherein [a]ppellant John Jones [(Jones)] was operating his employer’s, Time Warner Cable’s, bucket truck when he became involved in a motor vehicle accident with a third party driver. [] Jones suffered various injuries due to this accident. The third-party driver’s insurer paid to [Appellants] the $100,000.00 maximum allowed under the third party driver’s [automobile insurance] policy. However, Appellants subsequently filed a supplemental claim for … [UIM] coverage with [Erie], their own personal automobile insurer claiming their injuries and damages exceeded the third-party driver’s coverage limit]. [Erie] denied Appellants’ UIM claim pursuant to the “regularly used, non-owned vehicle exclusion” [(regular use exclusion)] contained in Appellants’ [P]olicy because … Jones was operating his employer’s vehicle, for which Appellants had not purchased insurance.
the trial court in this case correctly opined that regular use exclusions “ha[ve] been held by the Supreme Court to be valid and enforceable under the MVFRL and public policy.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/11/20, at 6 (citing Burstein and Williams); see also Rush II, 308 A.3d at 802. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court properly granted Erie’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, as “the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible.” Ins. Fedn. of Pa., 970 A.2d at 1114; see also generally Rush II.
Based on the foregoing, and consistent with Rush II, none of Appellants’ issues entitle them to relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered in favor of Erie.
