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 is Lollar v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., No. HHDCV196108715S (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. Oct. 22, 2019).

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.