HARRISBURG - Safe Auto isn’t responsible for defending an uninsured woman in a personal injury lawsuit after she got into an accident while driving her boyfriend's car.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determined that the insurance company’s unlisted resident driver exclusion (URDE) policy is applicable in a ruling issued Aug. 20, affirming the Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling.
Justice Debra Todd wrote the opinion. Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor and justices Max Baer, Christine Donohue, Kevin M. Dougherty, David N. Wecht and Sallie Updyke Mundy concurred.
Rachel Dixon was driving the car of her boyfriend, Rene Oriental-Guillermo, on April 29, 2013, when she collided with another car. She and Dixon lived together, and Dixon was the policyholder for his account with Safe Auto Insurance Company.
The policy included a URDE, “which excludes from coverage any individuals who live with, but are not related to, the policyholder, and whom the policyholder does not specifically list as an additional driver on the insurance policy,” according to the decision.
Alli Licona-Avila was the driver of the other car, and Priscila Jiminez was in the passenger seat. Jiminez and her husband, Luis, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Oriental-Guillermo, Dixon and Licona-Avila. Safe Auto then filed its lawsuit against Dixon, Oriental-Guillermo and the Jiminezes for declaratory judgment on whether the URDE would be enforced for Dixon.
The lower court sided with Safe Auto, stating that the URDE was valid, and Safe Auto isn’t responsible for defending Dixon in the lawsuit.
The Jiminezes appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed. The couple then filed a petition for allowance of appeal, questioning the Superior ruling, but the Supreme Court affirmed as well.
The Supreme Court agreed with Safe Auto that the appellants forfeited their argument that the URDE in the policy didn’t comply with the Protection of Others provision in the policy, since the appellants failed to bring it up when the case was being heard by the Superior Court.
It also disagreed with appellants’ argument that the URDE infringes on Section 1786 “by requiring a vehicle owner to identify all regular users, or residents of the owner’s household, in order to guarantee that they are covered under an insurance policy,” according to the opinion. The Supreme Court added that it doesn’t violate the law since the URDE is related to the vehicle owner, not the insurer.
The URDE explicitly said it does not cover someone who lives with the policyholder but is not related to the policyholder, unless they’re named as an additional driver. Oriental-Guillermo said he knew about this rule, but still allowed his girlfriend to drive his car.