“Named driver only” policy does not conflict with Section 1718(c) of the MVFRL and does not violate public policy

The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s determination that the “named driver only” automobile policy issued to Zainab Walker did not violate Section 1718(c) of the MVFRL and is not contrary to public policy. The plaintiff was allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident that involved a vehicle owned by Walker and operated by Matthew Gilmore. The complaint included a count against Gilmore for negligent operation of Walker’s vehicle and a count against Walker for negligent entrustment. The Victoria policy that insured the vehicle did not provide liability coverage for any person not listed as a named driver on the policy, and Walker was the only driver listed on the policy. The plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration from the court that Victoria had a duty to defend and provide insurance coverage to Walker and Gilmore for all claims arising out of the accident. On appeal, the Superior Court considered that Section 1718(c) of the MVFRL refers to “named driver exclusion” policies, which exclude a particular driver, as opposed to the present situation, where only the named driver is provided coverage. The Superior Court held that the policy did not conflict with, nor was it contrary to, Section 1718(c); rather, Section 1718(c) is inapplicable to the policy in this case. The “named driver only” policy is not contemplated by Section 1718(c). The plaintiff also argued that “named driver only” policies are against public policy because they increase the number of uninsured motorists on Pennsylvania roads. The Superior Court rejected this argument as well, holding that the provision of low-cost, affordable policies in return for motor vehicle liability coverage of the named driver, and the concomitant risk reduction, does not violate public policy. Thus, the trial court’s order was affirmed.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}