Credit: alexandre17/Shutterstock The Colorado law states, in part, that the insured is "legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured [or underinsured] motor vehicles." (Credit: alexandre17/Shutterstock)
The Colorado Court of Appeals has rejected as unlawful so-called regular-use exclusions in auto insurance policies, which deny uninsured (UM) and underinsured motorist UIM) coverage for injuries sustained in vehicles regularly used by an insured but not listed on the policy.

When Beverly Hughes was injured in a motor vehicle accident, she filed a claim with her insurer, Essentia Insurance Co., under the UM/UIM benefit provision of her policy, according to the appeals court's May 5 opinion. Essentia insured Hughes' two classic cars, but not the "regular use vehicle" she was driving at the time of the crash.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader

Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:

  • Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
  • Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
  • Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
  • Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Auto
Litigation