Pennsylvania courts routinely hold that a vehicle is available for “regular use” when they are “readily obtainable [or] accessible” for use. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, No. 03-4575, 2004 WL 603416, at *5–6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2004). “Determining whether a vehicle was available for the insured’s ‘regular use’ is a fact-intensive inquiry. However, where the facts are not in dispute, and reasonable minds cannot differ as to the result, the issue of coverage can be decided as a matter of law by the Court.” Id. at *2 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, no material facts concerning Plaintiff’s regular use of the tractor trailer are in dispute. The “regular use” exclusion provision unambiguously states:
We do not provide Underinsured Motorists Coverage or Underinsured Motorists Coverage for “bodily injury” sustained by you or any “family member” while occupying or when struck by any motor vehicle that you or any “family member” owns; or that is furnished or available for your or any “family member’s” regular use which is not insured for this coverage under this policy….
(Doc. No. 20 at 3–4.) At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, the tractor trailer was furnished and available for his regular and daily use, used daily by him, and parked nightly at his home. (See Doc. No. 20-5 at 10.) Plaintiff’s statements show the tractor trailer was readily obtainable or accessible for his regular use. Additionally and tellingly, in his Response to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff does not deny that the tractor trailer falls within the “regular use” exclusion provision, and he provides no material facts to rebut his deposition testimony. (See Doc. No. 23 at 2–13.) The parties also do not dispute that the Travelers Policy did not insure the tractor trailer involved in Plaintiff’s accident. (See Doc. No. 20 at 2.) For these reasons, reasonable minds cannot differ that the tractor trailer was furnished and available for Plaintiff’s regular use and therefore not insured by the Travelers Policy. Consequently, there is no genuine dispute of material fact for trial, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20) will be granted.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20) will be granted. An appropriate Order follows.
Stephen Thaler, Plaintiff,
v.
1:20-cv-903 (LMB/TCB)
United States District Court,
E.D. Virginia,
Alexandria Division.
Signed 09/02/2021
