Many of our auto accident clients have taken care to protect themselves and their families by purchasing top-shelf auto insurance policies on their personal cars. These clients wisely understand the importance of having the maximum Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage and Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage.

UM/UIM coverage provides coverage for the insured, their family members, and even passengers in their cars if they are injured in a way that involves the negligent maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. UM/UIM coverage extends to a wide variety of circumstances, including injuries sustained while walking, riding a bicycle, or even riding in a neighbor’s car.

These clients are often shocked to learn that the UM/UIM coverage for which they have been paying premiums for years does not cover them if they are driving cars that are provided to them for their “regular use”, even if their jobs require them to drive. This is because lurking in virtually every Pennsylvania auto insurance policy is language similar to this:

We will not pay for bodily injury to you or a household resident using a non-owned car not insured under this part, regularly used by you or a household resident.

Because of our expertise in representing police, fire, and EMS workers in Pennsylvania Heart and Lung Act benefits cases, we often represent these and other individuals in car accident cases as well. They are required to drive (or at least ride in) vehicles provided to them by their employer. Since a vehicle is provided to them for their use, their personal auto UM/UIM coverage is excluded. Courts have upheld these exclusions as valid, even when the employee uses different vehicles from a fleet, and even when an employee used a vehicle four nights per month for six months of the year, did not have keys, and could not use the vehicle for personal use.

This exclusion is particularly unfair when you consider that most employees have no control over whether the employer buys optional UM/UIM coverage. Moreover, I am not aware of any insurance companies that offer policies in Pennsylvania that permit you to buy coverage without that exclusion; it is in every policy I have ever seen. If you have ever tried to negotiate the contractual terms of a standard insurance policy, you know that this is a fruitless effort. Consequently, there is nothing that the employee can do to protect himself while driving his employer’s car.

Let’s say Officer Johnson responds to a call in a police cruiser furnished to him by his employer. On the way, he is struck by an uninsured motorist and suffers injuries. Since he is operating a vehicle that is provided for his regular use, his UM insurer refuses coverage, citing the “non-owned, regular use” exclusion. Officer Johnson asks his municipality whether it provides UM coverage, and the answer is almost uniformly that this optional coverage was not purchased. As a result, Officer Johnson has no way to recover money for his injuries.

Unbelievably, our courts have rejected challenges to this exclusion on the grounds that it violates public policy. One court coldly stated, “the employee has one of three options: (1) the employee can drive without the UIM coverage (because Pennsylvania does not require it); (2) the employee can attempt to obtain UIM coverage by either negotiating with the employer to provide it or privately purchasing coverage; or (3) the employee can refuse to drive an employer-provided vehicle.”

So the choice is to: (1) drive unprotected; (2) negotiate with your employer or purchase coverage that is not offered by any insurer; or (3) quit your job. As a lawyer, I understand that the law can be unfair. This particular unfairness seems especially harmful, because there is no viable alternative for the employee who gets hurt while driving an employer’s car.