A notation of “PP/LC” which qualified a grant of underinsured motorist coverage excluded coverage for the insured as he was neither a private passenger nor driving a light commercial vehicle, but coverage was found in another policy with a similar underinsured motorist coverage clause that did not contain the qualifying notation.
Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Exclusions – Underinsured motorist – Terms of policy – Multiple policies – Different insurer
Kahlon v. ACE INA Insurance,  O.J. No. 438, 2018 ONSC 784, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 29, 2018, A.C.R. Whitten J.
The insured was struck while standing outside of his tractor trailer by an underinsured motorist. ACE insured the tractor trailer, which was owned by the insured’s corporation which leased the tractor to Bell City Transport which provided the rig to the insured to operate as an independent contractor. Allstate insured the insured’s personal vehicles. Both policies contained an OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage, which is optional underinsured coverage. The Court held that the notation in the ACE policy that the coverage was limited to automobiles described as “PP/LC” was sufficient to limit the coverage to private passenger vehicles and light commercial vehicles. As the tractor trailer was neither, it was excluded from coverage under the ACE policy. There was no similar limitation in the Allstate policy. The Court found that the coverage in the Allstate policy followed the insured to Florida where the incident occurred.
This case was digested by Dionne H. Liu, and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact Dionne H. Liu at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here