Court Opinion

ID: 9586611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:13:17.417655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:45.289206
License: Public Domain

Justice MARTIN
dissenting.
Believing as I do that the majority has failed to properly interpret and apply the policy exclusion under consideration, I respectfully dissent.
At the outset it is settled law in this jurisdiction that exclusions contained in liability policies of insurance are to be construed against the insurer. Grant v. Insurance Co., 295 N.C. 39, 243 S.E.2d 894 (1978). This Court has adopted a two-prong test to determine whether a non-owned vehicle is furnished to the insured for his or her “regular use” and is thereby excluded from coverage under the policy provision in question. In Whaley v. Insurance Co., 259 N.C. 545, 131 S.E.2d 491 (1963), this Court held that coverage in such cases would depend upon the availability of the vehicle for use and the frequency of its use by the insured. Each case is to be decided upon its own facts and circumstances. In Whaley, the vehicle was available to the driver for both personal and business use, and he actually took full advantage of this availability on numerous occasions. This Court held that the car was indeed available *449for Whaley’s “regular use” and that the exclusion should apply. See also Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unigard Indemnity Co., 76 N.C. App. 88, 331 S.E.2d 741 (1985) (no restrictions placed on use of vehicle and uninterrupted possession was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the vehicle was furnished for regular use). To the same effect are Gaddy v. Insurance Co., 32 N.C. App. 714, 233 S.E.2d 613 (1977); Insurance Co. v. Bullock, 21 N.C. App. 208, 203 S.E.2d 650 (1974); Devine v. Casualty & Surety Co., 19 N.C. App. 198, 198 S.E.2d 471 (1973).
In contrast to the facts in the above cases, Dr. Warren’s use of the automobile was limited to driving to and from the hospital, a very restricted use. The vehicle was not available for her regular use. She did not drive the car during the day for other business purposes nor did she make any other use whatsoever of the vehicle. In addition, her use of the vehicle was not exclusive nor was her possession of the vehicle exclusive. Other students used the vehicle during the same period of time that Dr. Warren was entitled to use the vehicle.
The use of the the word “regular” in the exclusion creates an ambiguity and such ambiguities must be construed against the insurance company. Grant v. Insurance Co., 295 N.C. 39, 243 S.E.2d 894. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1096 (1980) gives as one definition of “regular” the meaning “usual.” Certainly, Dr. Warren’s use of the vehicle was not the “usual” use of an automobile. Usually people use automobiles for such purposes as they may choose. Here, Dr. Warren’s use of the motor vehicle was limited and certainly did not give her the right to use the vehicle in a usual or regular fashion.
Likewise, “regular” means “ordinary.” Rodale, The Synonym Finder 1024 (1967). Certainly, the limited availability of the vehicle for restricted use by Dr. Warren was neither ordinary nor regular within the policy terms. This case is strikingly similar to Central Security Mutual Insurance Co. v. DePinto, 235 Kan. 331, 681 P.2d 15 (Kansas 1984). In DePinto, the driver was a student nurse who, as a part of her training, was participating in a clinical program at outlying hospitals. She was furnished a van in which to transport herself and other nursing students to and from such hospitals. She did not have permission to use the van for personal errands or other purposes and did not so use the vehicle. The Kansas court noted that her use was not continuous, was not normal use *450for all purposes, and was not an unlimited use. Thereupon, the court found that the “furnished for regular use” exclusion was not applicable in that case. In DePinto, the Kansas Supreme Court held that “regular use” was continuous use, uninterrupted normal use for all purposes without limitation as to use, and customary use as opposed to occasional or special use. I find the Kansas definition to be the applicable definition in North Carolina in the light of our holding in Whaley. When one looks at the availability of the vehicle for use and the actual frequency of its use, it is clear that Dr. Warren’s use of the vehicle in this case was not continuous, uninterrupted, normal, or without limitation and was not the customary use as opposed to a special use of the vehicle. I find that the vehicle in this case was furnished for use limited as to time, route, purpose and possession. This conclusion is also supported by Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hudson, 15 Ariz. App. 371, 488 P.2d 1008 (1971); State Farm v. Townsend, 361 N.W.2d 332 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984) and Grace v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 324 F.Supp. 953 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff'd, 440 F.2d 411 (5th Cir. 1971).
Finally, the use by Dr. Warren of the vehicle in this case does not violate the purpose for which insurance companies have inserted this exclusion in their policies. The insurance companies want to exclude vehicles used habitually by an insured without the payment of insurance premiums. The policy is to prevent a family or person from having two or more automobiles that are used interchangeably with only one automobile being insured. Whaley v. Insurance Co., 259 N.C. 545, 131 S.E.2d 491. See 12A Couch on Insurance 2d § 45:1074 (1981 and Supp. 1985). The vehicle being furnished in this case does not violate the purposes for which the insurance company included the exclusion in the policy. In the event that insurance companies desire to be more specific in the meaning of their language in this exclusion, it is a simple matter for them to provide a definition of the term “regular use” in the definition section of their policy. Otherwise, we should reconcile this ambiguous question against the drafter, the insurance company, and allow coverage in this case. It is not up to the courts to fill in the gaps which the insurance company could have done had it chosen to do so in order to exclude insureds from policy coverage. I vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.