UM/UIM exclusion does not apply in rental vehicle case
In a case of first impression, a Conn. court ruled that the UM/UIM exclusion did not apply in a rental car case.
A Connecticut trial court has ruled that an automobile insurer may not exclude uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage for rental vehicles from an automobile liability insurance policy where the policy provides rental vehicle coverage as permitted — but not required — by Connecticut law.
The case
Justin Lollar claimed that he was injured while riding as a passenger in a rental car that was struck by an uninsured driver. He sought UM/UIM benefits under the insurance policy that the driver had purchased from Progressive Direct Insurance Company.
Progressive denied the claim, asserting that although its policy provided for coverage, generally, when the insured rents a vehicle. A separate endorsement changed the definition of a covered automobile for UM/UIM purposes to those owned by the insured driver which excluded rental vehicles.
Lollar sued, contending that the UM/UIM exclusion violated Connecticut law.
The parties moved for summary judgment.
The court’s decision
The court granted summary judgment in favor of Lollar.
In its decision, the court explained that UM/UIM coverage was mandatory in Connecticut and could not be excluded from an automobile insurance policy unless specifically excluded by statute or regulation. The court added that an insurer seeking to limit its liability for UM/UIM coverage could do so “only to the extent” that it was expressly permitted to do so.
The court then ruled that although rental car coverage was not mandatory in automobile liability insurance policies in Connecticut, an exclusion of UM/UIM coverage for such rental vehicles was “not authorized by state statute or agency regulation.”
So, the court concluded that the exclusion was unenforceable.
The case is Lollar v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., No. HHDCV196108715S (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. Oct. 22, 2019).
Related: