Allstate, Exclusion Clause and Regular Use of Insured Person

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently upheld a decision in favor of Allstate agreeing with the lower court that the policy was unambiguous and therefore appellant was not covered.  The facts were pretty straight-forward.  The plaintiff was injured in a serious accident.  The defendant or offending vehicle was covered by an Allstate issued policy.  The defendant an Allstate insured was driving a vehicle his father had leased for him for his regular use.  The plaintiff sued for her injuries and the full policy was tendered.  However, she sought additional coverage from a second policy also from Allstate.  The defendant's mother had a policy of her own that included resident-relative.  The defendant lived with the mother.  The policy provided a section that excluded any additional insured drivers that had a vehicle that they used regularly.  There was a also a provision in the policy that when checked indicated that certain “Drivers Excluded” from the policy.  There were none listed.  The plaintiff argued that the policy was ambiguous among other issues because defendant should be covered since he was not excluded.  The Superior Court disagreed and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.  Allstate prevailed that the policy as written is not ambiguous and that the party could not overcome any of the other issues.  See full decision: Allstate v. Ahlquist