Recently, the North Dakota Supreme Court held that an employee’s use of a company owned vehicle did not constitute regular use within the purview of a regular use exclusion. In Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bear Creek Gravel, Inc., 2021 WL 1114155 (N.D. March 24, 2021), an employee was instructed to use the employer’s pick-up truck for an errand. The employer imposed restrictions on the employee’s use of the vehicle. As an example, the employee needed permission to drive the vehicle and was not allowed to drive it while off duty. The employee did not have his own set of keys to the vehicle. These factors were critical in the Court’s decision. The Court found that whether a vehicle had been provided for regular use was a question of fact. The Court recognized that reasonable restrictions in terms of time and place on the use of the vehicle could support a conclusion that the vehicle was not furnished for a person’s regular use.
A Respected Expert Witness And Authority On Insurance Law In The U.S.
- CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS REFUSES TO EXPAND THE TRIGGER FOR WHEN “CUMIS” COUNSEL IS REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2860
- THE SPLIT LANDSCAPE REGARDING DEPRECIATION OF LABOR COSTS WHEN CALCULATING ACTUAL CASH VALUE
- CALIFORNIA COURT FINDS THAT A SUBJECTIVE STANDARD APPLIES TO AN INSURER’S PRIOR KNOWLEDGE PROVISION
- STEPPING DOWN INTO FELONY FLIGHT