Preview:

[J-26-2010] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN JJ. ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. GEICO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 29 WAP 2009 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered December 29, 2008 at No. 931 WDA 2007, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, entered May 9, 2007 at Nos. 10995 of 2006 and 11130 of 2006.

ARGUED: April 14, 2010

GEICO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee v. ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, Appellant

OPINION

MADAME JUSTICE ORIE MELVIN

DECIDED: October 19, 2011

This is a discretionary appeal from the December 29, 2008 Superior Court order, which affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Appellee, GEICO Government Employees Insurance Company ("GEICO"). We granted review to address whether the "regular-use" exclusion contained in a personal automobile insurance policy is valid to preclude payment of underinsured motorist ("UIM") benefits to a police officer injured in the course of employment while operating a police vehicle for which the officer did not have the

ability to obtain UIM coverage.

In light of our precedent and in consideration of

Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"),1 we affirm. The facts are undisputed. Appellant Robert C. Williams ("Williams") has been a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper since 1994. On June 23, 2004, Williams was seriously injured in an automobile accident while operating a Ford Crown Victoria owned and maintained by the Pennsylvania State Police.2 Williams has been unable to return to his duties due to his injuries. At the time of the accident, Williams maintained a personal automobile insurance policy with GEICO. Appellant's policy included UIM coverage with limits of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident with stacking available. Williams sought to recover UIM benefits from GEICO for the June 23, 2004 accident. GEICO denied coverage, citing the regular-use exclusion contained in the policy, which provided: When This Coverage Does Not Apply: 9. When using a motor vehicle furnished for the regular use of you, your spouse, or a relative who resides in your household, which is not insured under this policy.

GEICO's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, 1/26/07, Ex. C at 19. On May 19, 2006, Appellant instituted a civil action3 against Joseph Stickley, the driver of the other vehicle. On July 21, 2006, Williams filed a petition to compel UIM

1 2

75 Pa.C.S.

Download 29-wap-2009.pdf

Pennsylvania Law