Erie Insurance Exchange scored a decisive Pennsylvania court win, cementing the “regular use” exclusion in underinsured motorist disputes involving work vehicles and personal policies.
On July 22, 2025, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a lower court ruling that Erie did not have to pay additional underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits to Richard Russo. The case turned on whether Russo could combine, or “stack,” coverage from his personal auto policy with the benefits he already received under his employer’s policy after a workplace crash.
The accident dates back to November 19, 2018. Russo, an employee of Lancaster Plumbing, Heating, Cooling and Electrical, was driving a company vehicle during his shift when the collision occurred. His employer’s policy with Donegal Insurance Group paid him the maximum UIM benefit of $35,000. Russo later sought more compensation through his personal auto policy with Erie, which covered four vehicles and included stacked UIM coverage.
Erie Insurance Group is one of the top 10 personal auto insurance companies in Pennsylvania. Learn more in this guide.
Erie pushed back, filing for declaratory judgment on August 3, 2022. The company relied on its policy’s regular use exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries involving non-owned vehicles that the insured regularly uses but are not listed for UIM coverage under the policy. In Erie’s view, Russo’s daily use of employer-provided vehicles meant the exclusion applied, making additional benefits unavailable.
The policy language stated: “This insurance does not apply to… bodily injury to ‘you’ or a ‘resident’ using a nonowned ‘motor vehicle’ or a nonowned ‘miscellaneous vehicle’ which is regularly used by ‘you’ or a ‘resident,’ but not insured for Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist Coverage under this policy.”
In July 2024, the trial court agreed with Erie and entered declaratory judgment. Russo appealed, arguing that recent case law, including Gallagher v. Geico Indemnity Co. and Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, supported his position. But the Superior Court leaned on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2024 Rush decision, which had upheld the validity of the regular use exclusion, to reject Russo’s claim.
A central point in the appeal was whether Russo qualified as an “insured” under the Donegal policy—a status that would have allowed stacking of benefits under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. The court ruled he did not, since he was neither named in the employer’s policy nor met the statute’s definition of an insured.
The Superior Court’s decision closes the door on Russo’s bid for additional UIM coverage and clarifies how exclusions apply when employees drive work vehicles regularly. For insurers, the ruling offers clear guidance on policy drafting and claims handling in similar disputes.
